Bolton’s Allocations Plan
Consultation Statement
April 2013
1
Background
1.1 The council has prepared this statement in accordance with Regulation 17(d) of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. It explains how the
council has consulted organisations and individuals as it has formulated the Published
Allocations Plan. For each stage of consultation it sets out:
When consultation took place
How consultation took place
Who responded to the consultation
What issues were raised in the consultation responses
How the council changed the plan as a result.
2
Call for sites
2.1 In February 2011, the council carried out a call for sites exercise. It wrote to developers,
landowners and their agents, and to amenity organisations. It asked them to identify sites
that should be made available for development. This request was also placed on the
council’s website. Supporting information was also requested.
2.2 A total of 51 sites were identified for possible development. Most sites put forward were for
possible housing development, though there were also possible employment sites, retail
allocations, and transport proposals.
2.3 The council considered whether these sites and areas were appropriate for inclusion in the
Draft Allocations Plan. Some proposed development sites were contrary to the Core
Strategy, for example because they were in the Green Belt, and so they were not carried
forward into the Draft Allocations Plan. Other sites were subsequently included in the Draft
Allocations Plan because they were in line with the Core Strategy and performed
satisfactorily in the sustainability appraisal.
2.4 The following are included as appendices to the Statement
The call for sites letter
A list of recipients
A list of responses, showing who responded and the suggested sites
3
Consultation on scoping
3.1 Between July 2011 and September 2011, the council consulted a number of different
organisations about the overall scope of the Allocations Plan should be. A total of 12
responses were received, setting out subjects that should be included within the scope of
the Allocations Plan.
3.2 The following are included as appendices to the Statement:
The letter of consultation
A list of recipients
A schedule of comments and the council’s response to them
Bolton Council
1
4
Draft Allocations Plan
4.1 Between November 2011 and January 2012, the council consulted on the Draft Allocations
Plan. The council directly consulted a wide range of organisations and individuals by letter
and email. It placed a copy of the Draft Plan and the consultation procedure on the council
website and in Bolton Town Hall and libraries. It placed an article in the council newspaper
and attended various Area Forums.
4.2 A total of 553 responses were received. Most responses were objecting to open recreation
sites that were identified for possible housing development. Other points raised were:
Support for the identification of some possible housing sites
Requests to allocate additional housing sites
Comments on the need for traveller policies and sites
Support for the protection Green Belt from development
Support and objection to the Cutacre employment site
Request to allocate more
Support and objection to town centre boundaries for Bolton, Westhoughton and
Little Lever
Requests to allocate additional employment sites
Objections to the policy on strategic routes
Requests to allocate land for station improvements
Objections to the lack of cycle routes on the Proposals Map
Requests to ensure that land for health facilities is considered
Requests to update the information on Local Nature Reserves
Objections to the lack of green corridors on the Proposals Map
Objections to the effects of some possible development sites on listed buildings
Objections to the decentralised energy policy
4.3 The council prepared a schedule of comments and how it proposed to take them into
account in changes to the Allocations Plan.
4.4 The following are included as appendices to this Statement:
A summary of the methods of consultation
The letter of consultation
A list of organisations and people to whom the letter was sent
A schedule of comments together with the council’s response to them.
5
Proposed changes to the Draft Allocations Plan
5.1 Between September 2012 and December 2012, the council consulted on proposed
changes to the Allocations Plan. The proposed changes were necessary to take into
account the comments made to the Draft Allocations Plan and the publication of the
National Planning Policy Framework. The council directly consulted a wide range of
organisations and individuals by letter and email. It placed a copy of the proposed
changes to the Draft Plan and the consultation procedure on the council website and in
Bolton Town Hall and libraries.
5.2 Most of the comments on the proposed changes to the Allocations Plan were on possible
housing sites, especially those currently used for informal recreation. Other points raised
were:
Bolton Council
2
Requests for additional housing sites, some of which argued that the supply of
housing is inadequate
Requests to identify sites for mixed use development
A request to change the boundary of the Cutacre employment site
Further comments on the boundary of Bolton town centre
Requests to identify additional employment sites
Objections to the written policies, including those on school playing fields and
decentralised energy
5.3 The following are included as appendices to this Statement:
A summary of the methods of consultation
The letter of consultation
A list of organisations and people to whom the letter was sent
A schedule of comments together with the council’s response to them.
Bolton Council
3
List of Appendices (with links in electronic version)
Appendix 1
The call for sites letter ............................................................................................................... 5
Appendix 2
A list of recipients of the call for sites letter .............................................................................. 7
2a:
Organisations, and people associated with – or on behalf of – organisations or others .......... 7
2b:
People with no stated organisation who were sent the call for sites letter ............................. 18
Appendix 3
A list of responses to the call for sites .................................................................................... 22
Appendix 4
The letter of consultation for Allocations Plan scoping ........................................................... 24
Appendix 5
A list of recipients of the scoping letter ................................................................................... 25
Appendix 6
A schedule of comments on scoping together with the council’s response to them .............. 26
Appendix 7
A summary of the methods of consultation on the Draft Plan ................................................ 47
Appendix 8
The letter of consultation on the Draft Plan ............................................................................ 48
Appendix 9
A list of organisations & people to whom the Draft Plan consultation letter was sent ............ 50
9a:
Organisations, and people associated with – or on behalf of – organisations or others ........ 50
9b:
People with no stated organisation who were sent the letter ................................................. 59
Appendix 10
A schedule of comments on the Draft Plan together with the council’s response to them ..... 63
10a:
Comments on Allocations DPD .............................................................................................. 63
10b:
Comments on Allocations DPD Sustainability Appraisal ...................................................... 484
Appendix 11
A summary of the methods of consultation on proposed changes to the Draft Plan ........... 486
Appendix 12
The letter of consultation on proposed changes to the Draft Plan ....................................... 488
Appendix 13
A list of organisations and people to whom the proposed changes letter was sent ............. 490
13a:
Organisations, and people associated with – or on behalf of – organisations or others ...... 490
13b:
People with no stated organisation who were consulted ...................................................... 499
Appendix 14
A schedule of comments on the proposed changes together with the council’s response
to them .................................................................................................................................. 505
Bolton Council
4
Appendix 1
Date:
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
WP No:
The call for sites letter
7 February 2011
PTP/AC/UG27
Spatial Planning,
Development and Regeneration
3rd floor,
Bolton Town Hall
Bolton BL1 1RU
Tel:
Fax:
01204 333333
01204 336399
www.bolton.gov.uk
Dear Sir or Madam,
Allocations Development Plan Document – further call for
sites for development or protection
As you will be aware, the Council has been working on its Core Strategy, the key document in its
Local Development Framework, which will guide development of Bolton to 2026. This contains the
overall planning framework for the borough, the strategic site allocation at Horwich Locoworks and
development management policies for determining planning applications. The Core Strategy has
now completed most of its statutory processes including public examination and is anticipated to
be adopted in March 2011. Further details can be found on the Council’s website at
www.bolton.gov.uk/corestrategy.
Now that the future strategy is clear we are now re-starting work on the more detailed Allocations
Development Plan Document. This plan will identify sites to help implement the Core Strategy on
the ground. It will need to allocate land for a range of future uses including housing, employment,
recreation and retailing and will also show areas and sites for protection such as Green Belt,
conservation areas or sites of biological importance. The exact range of possible allocations is still
being considered.
You may have been involved in earlier discussions about sites, either through work on the
abandoned Housing Development Plan Document, the Core Strategy, or via the call for sites
exercise which started in late 2007. If this is the case I am contacting you again to check that your
intentions remain the same and to provide the opportunity to change, update or add to that
information, for example to make us aware of changes in ownership or recent planning decisions.
If not, this informal stage provides you with the opportunity to become involved either on your own
behalf or by representing others.
The Council does already have a considerable evidence base of sites from studies which informed
Core Strategy preparation including the Employment Land Review, Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment and other studies such as the Open Space Assessment and Strategic
Director of Development and Regeneration Keith Davies
Bolton Council
Appendix 1: The call for sites letter
5
Flood Risk Assessment. Many of the earlier “call for sites” submissions have already feed into
these studies.
Please note that site suggestions will be subject to both sustainability appraisal and fit with the
strategy, policies and locational priorities of the Core Strategy. Sites which do not accord with the
Core Strategy are very unlikely to be taken forward in the Allocations Plan.
This call for sites also provides the opportunity to update the March 2009 Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment. We welcome any information on changes to housing sites within the
SHLAA including their availability or constraints and also details of new sites over 0.25 ha that
have potential for housing. A list of the 2009 SHLAA sites is included within Bolton’s Annual
Monitoring Report 2008/2009 which can be viewed via the Council’s website.
Please find a form enclosed for completion as appropriate. To enable us to accurately locate any
sites please enclose a site plan with your submission. If you have already provided details of a site
or sites that you wish us to consider there is no need to duplicate information already supplied.
If you are proposing sites for future development it would be useful to be made aware of any
constraints that affect the site. These might include, for example, the availability of infrastructure
such as mains services e.g. gas, electricity, water or sewerage, access issues, or contamination
arising from the previous use.
I would be grateful for responses by 1 March 2011 although responses will be accepted after this
date.
Please note that we have contacted a range of people and organisation either by email or letter.
However where a letter has been sent this has been limited to one per organisation to avoid
duplication and to minimise postage costs. I would however be grateful if you would make this
follow-up call for sites widely known to appropriate contacts within your organisation.
If you have any enquiries or need further assistance please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Chalmers
Principal Development Officer (Planning Strategy)
Direct Line: 01204 336109
Direct Fax: 01204 336119
E-mail:
[email protected]
Director of Development and Regeneration Keith Davies
Bolton Council
Appendix 1: The call for sites letter
6
Appendix 2
2a:
A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
Organisations, and people associated with – or on behalf of – organisations or others
Organisation
3 Ltd
4NW
A S Chapman
Associates
A. B. Design
Services
Acorus Rural
Property Services
Adactus Housing
Group Ltd
Adlington Town
Council
Adult services
AEW Architects &
Designers Ltd.
Afghan Community
Group
African Children
Protection
African Children
Protection
African Community
Association of Bolton
African Community
Group
Age Concern
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
Airport Operators
Al - Falah Mosque
Alyn Nicholls &
Associates
Amphibian & Reptile
Group of South
Lancashire (ARGSL)
Ancient Monuments
Society
Apna Women's
Group
Armstrong Group of
Companies
Arriva
Bolton Council
Full Name
Ms Sam Turner
Mr A Chapman
Mr A Brown
Mr Anthony Atkinson
Ms Morna Maines
Mrs Linda Crouch
Nick Maher
Dr Abdul Hakeem Nazeer
Jimmy Mugisha
Deo Ntangano
Nat Biney
Gabriel Bayor
Mr Patrick J. Clinton
Mr K White
Mr J Copeland
Mr P Whiteley
Mr D I Groves
Mr S Saund
Mr N Butterworth
Mr G Aldridge
A J Lang
Mr A Whittam
Mr S Bolton
Mr S Taylor
Mr I Birchall
Mr R Potter
Mr F Whittaker
Mr Asif Patel
Mr A Nicholls
Mr David Orchard
Farhat Shaheen
Mr Joe Major
Mr Andrew Jarvis
Organisation
Full Name
Arriva
Arriva NW
Arriva NW
Artech Design
Arts development
Ashfords LLP (pp
Mrs Yates)
Ashrafia Mosque
Asian Elders
initiative
Asian Women Elders
exercise group
Asian/Afro Carribean
Advisory Centre
Ask/Bluemantle C/o
Drivers Jonas
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Park Estates
Atisreal Limited
Atisreal Limited
Atisreal Limited
Atisreal Limited
Atkins Design
Environment &
Engineering
B & D Croft
B&E Boys Ltd
BADGE
Bangladesh
Association
Bangladesh Welfare
Association
Barratt Chester
Barton Willmore
BATRA
Be Safe Partnership
Beara Properties
Ltd.
Bellway Homes Ltd
Bhailock Fielding
Bidwells
Blackburn with
Darwen Borough
Council
Blackrod Town
Council & Clerk
Bloor Homes
Bluemantle Ltd
Bluemantle Ltd
BNP Paribas
BNP Paribas Real
Estate (pp BAE
Systems)
Ben Jarvis
Henry Hughes
M Phillips
Lory Povah
Mr Tony Mason
Mr Gulam Hussain
Mr Ish Patel
Mr Anis Atcha
Mr Jamil Ahmed
Mr Graham Stock
Cllr Hilary Fairclough
Cllr Stuart Lever
Cllr John Walsh OBE
Mr Terry Cramant
Mr Paul Forshaw
Ms Sacha A.E. Ferreira
Mr John Dunshea
Mr Alex Willis
Ruth Bronley
Mr Sean Flynn
Mr John Boys
Sally Cooper
Mr A Wadua
Mr Shah
Mr Chris Garner
Mr Dan Mitchell
Michelle Jackson
Michael Kane
Mr Eddie Fleming
Mr Simon Artiss
Mr Ayub Bhailock
Mr Leon Armstrong
Mr David Proctor
Ms Christine Pearson
Mr D Jesph
J. S. Caldwell
Mr John Leighton
Mr Justin Cove
Mr Paul Forshaw
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
7
Organisation
BNP Paribas Real
Estate (pp Harworth
Estates)
Bolton & District
Civic Trust
Bolton Active
Disability Group for
Everyone
Bolton & Distirct
Victim Support
Bolton & District
Citizens Advice
Bureau
Bolton & District
Civic Trust
Bolton at Home
Bolton at Home
Bolton at Home
Bolton Bangladesh
Association
Community
Neighbourhood
Bolton Barbodhan
Society
Bolton Community
College
Bolton Community
College
Bolton Community
College
Bolton Community
Homes
Bolton Community
Network
Bolton Community
Network
Bolton Community
Transport &
Furniture Services
Bolton Council
Bolton Council
Bolton Council of
Mosques
Bolton Council,
Strategic Housing
Bolton Distict
Council for Voluntary
Service
Bolton Dutch Somali
Association
Bolton Emery
Partnership
Bolton Estates
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Bolton Hindu Forum
Bolton Hospitals
NHS Trust
Bolton Hospitals
NHS Trust
Bolton Interfaith
Council
Bolton Council
Full Name
Mr Paul Forshaw
Mr Richard Shirres
Ms Elined Jones
Heather Radcliffe
Barry Lyon
Mr Brian Tetlow
Kemi Abidogun
Ms Gwen Crawford
Mr Mark Turnbull
Aklus Miah
Mr AS Y Patel
Liz Foster
Mr Ian Fitzgerald
Mr Carl Hosker
Mr Dominic Conway
Sarah Lever
Carol Latham
Ms Diane Sandiford
Geoff Bennette
Mr Andy Grundy
Yunus Bobat
Faruk Kala
Ms karen Minnitt
Bashir Ahmed
Denise Emery
Mr Mike Dracup
Elizabeth Shepherd
Priti Merai
Mr Geoff Critchley
Chan Parmar
Organisation
Bolton Interfaith
Council
Bolton Jehovah's
Witnesses
Bolton Lads & Girls
Club
Bolton Magistrates
Court
The Bolton News
Bolton NHS
Bolton NHS
Bolton PCT
Bolton Primary Care
Trust
Bolton Public Health
Bolton Racial
Equality Council
(BREC)
(Bolton Resident,
member of cutacre
committee)
Bolton Shopmobility
Bolton Sixth Form
College
Bolton Sixth Form
College
Bolton Skills Board
Bolton Strategic
Economic
Partnership
Bolton Unemployed
Workers Advice
Centre
Bolton Vision
Partnership
Bolton Voice of
African Unity
Bolton Volunteer
Centre
Bolton West Indian
Association
Bolton Wildlife
Advisory Group
(WAG) C/o
University of Bolton
Bolton YMCA
Bovis Homes Limited
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw, Gas &
Hope
Breightmet Outreach
Scheme
Breightmet Ward
Breightmet Ward
Breightmet Ward
Bridgewater Meeting
Room Trust
British Geological
Survey
Full Name
Tony McNeile
Mr Steven Connell
Irene Chambers
Andrew Highem
Steve Hughes
Lesley Jones
Garrie Prosser
Shabir Abdul
Mr Mark Welsh
Ms Zahida Hussain
Mr John Booth
Mr Ray Bates
Bob Hindle
Ms Lesley Hart
Michael Kane
Michael Kane
Ms Denise Lonsdale
Carol James
Mr Otis Johnson
Peter Sloan
Mrs Lola Harwood
Ms Ann Kolodziejski
Philippa Martin
Mr David Miller
Cllr Diana Brierley
Cllr Paul Brierley
Cllr Walter Hall
Cllr John Byrne
Cllr Lynda Byrne
Cllr Arthur Norris
Mr Hugh Wilson
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
8
Organisation
British Marine
Federation
British
Telecommunications
PLC
British Waterways
The British Wind
Energy Association
Broadway Malyan
Bromley Cross Ward
Bromley Cross Ward
Bromley Cross Ward
Bryant Homes North
West Ltd
Bryant Homes North
West Ltd
Bryant Homes North
West Ltd
Bryant Homes North
West Ltd
Building Design
Partnership
(Manchester)
Building Design
Services
Bury Council
Business Enterprises
BWEA
CA Planning Town
Planners +
Environmental
Consultants
CA Planning Town
Planners +
Environmental
Consultants
Campaign Land
Limited
Campaign Land Ltd
Campaign to Protect
Rural England
(CPRE) Lancashire
Campbell
Community Group
Carribbean Original
Group
Carribean Elders
Association
Carter Jonas
Carter Jonas
Carter Jonas (pp
The Wilton Estate)
Carter Jonas LLP
(pp the Wilton
Estate)
CB Richard Ellis
CB Richard Ellis Ltd
CBRE
Centre for Ecology &
Hydrology
Bolton Council
Full Name
Mr Richard Newton
Ms Katie Adderley
Ruth White
Cllr Norman Critchley
Cllr David Wells
Greenhalgh
Cllr Alan Wilkinson
Mr G Owen
Mr James Holladay
Mr Charlie Jospeh
Mr Phil Mussell
Mr John Doyle
Mr Paul Allen
Mr J.P. Donelon
Ms Gemma Grimes
Alban Cassidy
Mr Guy Evans
Mr Paul. T. Percival
Mr Carl Morris
Mrs Lewis
Daphne Powell
Mr David Boulton
Mr John Goodwin
Mr Michael Barry
Mr Paul Leeming
Mr Laurie Lane
Sarah Cunliffe
Ms Laurie Lane
Organisation
Chair of the Bolton &
Rochdale Methodist
District
Chambers of
Commerce
Charles Topham &
Co
Chelford Homes
Chorley Council
Chorley Council
Chorley Council
Chorley Council
Chris Thomas Ltd
Church Leaders'
Forum
The Church of
England
Civil Aviation
Authority
Cleaner & Greener
Partnership
Cliff Walsingham &
Company
The Coal Authority
Colliers CRE
Colliers CRE
Colliers CRE (pp
Bilsdale Properties)
Commission for
Architecture & the
Built Environment
Commission for
Architecture & the
Built Environment
Commission for New
Towns & English
Partnerships
Communities &
Local Government
Community &
voluntary sector
Community relations
Congolese Sunday
Group
Contour Homes Ltd
The Co-operative
Group
Council for British
Archaeology
Council for the
Protection of Rural
England
Country land &
Business
Association
Countryside
Properties
County Bird
Recorder, Greater
Manchester
Crompton Ward
Crompton Ward
Full Name
Revd David King
Mr Robert Newman
Ms Caroline Crossley
Ms Alison Marland
Mr Peter McAnespie
Ms Rachael Hulme
Mr Julian Jackson
Mr Chris Thomas
Phillip Brookes
Right Revd Chris
Edmondson
Michael Kane
Christine Roberts
Mr Mark Harrison
Mr Adam Pyrke
Nicholas Finney
Mr Graham Connell
Sarah Burgess
Mr Bernard Benchella
Shahla Holgeth
Rabina Majid
Pastor Hubert N. Kayonda
Mr Anjam Shahzad
Annette Elliott
Carole Barrowclough
David Clark
Ms Helen Lancaster
Ms Jane Aspinall
Mrs J Smith
Cllr Sufrana Bashir-Ismail
Cllr Hanif Darvesh
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
9
Organisation
Full Name
Organisation
Crompton Ward
Croston
Conservatories
Crown Estate Office
Cushman &
Wakefield
D G & C Lonergan
Partners
D. M. Somerville
Daly International
Daubhill Muslim
Society
David Coutie
Associates
Davies Harrison
De Pol Associates
Deane
Neighbourhood
Residents
Association
Defence Estate
Organisation (Ops
North)
DEFRA
Denovo Design Ltd.
Department for
Constitutional Affairs
Department for
Culture, Media &
Sport
Department for
Education & Skills
(through GONW)
Department for
Transport (through
GONW)
Department of Trade
& Industry (through
GONW)
Design-a-Loft
Dickinson Court
Tenants Association
Diocesan Board of
Finance
Disabilty Rights
Commission
Disabled Persons
Transport Advisory
Committee
DNS Stuart Planning
& Design
DNS Stuart Planning
& Design
Dorbcrest Homes
Ltd
Dowd Town
Planning. Chartered
Town Planners
DPDS Consulting
Group
DPP
DPP (pp HMCS)
Cllr Guy Harkin
DPP pp Tesco
Stores Ltd
Drivers Jonas
Drivers Jonas
Drivers Jonas
DTZ (pp Harworth
Estates (UK Coal))
DTZ (pp Taylor
Wimpey plc)
Dunlop Haywards
Planning
Durose & Gourlay
Ltd.
EC Harris LLP
Edmund Kirby
Elite Homes (North)
Ltd
The Emerson Group
Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
(OBO Orbit
Investments
(Northern Ltd))
The Emerson Group
(OBO P.E. Jones
(Contractors) Ltd)
The Emerson Group
(OBO P.E. Jones
(Contractors) Ltd)
Emery Planning
Partnership
Emery Planning
Partnership
Emery Planning
Partnership
English Heritage
North West Region
Entec UK Ltd (pp
National Grid)
Envirolink Northwest
Environment Agency
Equality & Human
Rights Commission
Fairclough Homes
Farnworth Town Hall
Farnworth Ward
Farnworth Ward
Bolton Council
Mr Simon Broster
Dr D. M. Somerville
Mr Iain Taylor
Mr Yusuf Mangera
Mr Andrew Lynn
Mr P Walton
Mr Philip Baldwin
Ms H Sweeney
Rt. Hon. Philip Hammond
MP
Barbara Jackson
Mr Neil Betteridge
Farnworth Ward
Mr Dan Drayton
Mr Ian Stuart
Kierstan Boylan
Louise Dowd
Diane Bowyer
Ms Jen Popplewell
Ms Catherine Honeywell
First Floor, Thirlmere
House
First Group
First Group
First Group
First Group
First Group
First Group
Fish Associates Ltd.
Floorcare Supplies
Limited
Full Name
Ms Hannah Rogers
Mr Graham Stock
Carol Robinson
Lisa Roberts
Mr Hamish Robertshaw
Mr Hamish Robertshaw
Mr Mark Wolstenholme
Mr John Mackenzie
Mr J Chapman
Mr Graham Bee
Mr Graham Bee
Mr Graham Bee
Mr David Short
Sarah Sands
Caroline Taylor
Mr Rawdon Gascoigne
Ms Judith Nelson
Damien Holdstock
Ms Denise Oliver
Ms Helen Telfer
Jane Cicchetti
Cllr Jean Cottam
Cllr James Lord
Cllr Anthony Noel
Spencer
Mr David Hardman
Phil Bainbridge
John Beckett
Dave Borland
Tony Kennedy
Dave Leonard
Ged Ward
Mr Roger Walton
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
10
Organisation
The Forestry
Commission
Forestry
Commission
Forum for Sport
(Bolton)
Foxx Ltd.
Frank Whittaker
Freight Transport
Association
G L Hearn
G. D. Kelly pp Henry
James Hill
Garden History
Society
The Gateway
Sudanese
Community
Association Christian
GBWD Partnership
The Georgian Group
Gerald Eve
GL Hearn
GL Hearn
GL Hearn
GL Hearn (pp
Persimmon Homes /
Harcourt
Developments)
GL Hearn (pp
Persimmon Homes
& Harcourt
Developments)
GL Hearn (pp Tesco)
GM Chamber of
Commerce
GMGU
GMP
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GONW
GONW
Good & Tillotson
Gough Planning
Services
Graham Ball (pp
Robert Partington)
Graham Ball (pp
Thomas Pendlebury)
Great Lever ward
Great Lever ward
Great Lever ward
Great Places
Housing Group
Bolton Council
Full Name
Mr K K Jones
Susan Woodham
Mr Frank Whittaker
Ms Hayley Knight
Mr G. D. Kelly
Peter Lemi
Sophie Taylor
Mr Graham Lamb
Mr Philip Robinson
Mr Malcolm Armstrong
Mr Shaun Taylor
Mr Mike Baker
Mr Steve Edgeller
Hazel Roberts
Ms Philippa Lane
Stephen Lee
Mr Richard Clowes
Ms Rosemary Olle
Keith Howcroft
David Partington
Rita Quinn
Sam Tysoe
Mr Dave Arstall
Mr Paul Byrne
Mrs Judy Gough
Mr Graham Ball
Mr Graham Ball
Cllr Mohammed Ayub
Cllr Mohammed Iqbal
Cllr Madeline Murray
Mr Peter Bojar
Organisation
Greater Manchester
Chamber of
Commerce
Greater Manchester
Ecology Unit
(GMEU)
Greater Manchester
Fire & Rescue
Service HQ
Greater Manchester
Police
Greater Manchester
Police Architectural
Liaison
Greater Manchester
Police Bolton
Divisional
Headquarters
Greater Manchester
Waste Disposal
Authority
Greenhalgh &
Williams Partnership
Groundwork
Grow (Green
Residents of
Westhoughton)
Guide Dogs for the
Blind Association
Gujrati Art Group UK
GVA Grimley
GVA Grimley
GVA Grimley pp
Severnside Ltd
The Gypsy Council
Gypsy Liason Team
Haigh Parish Council
Halliwell Community
Transport
Halliwell ward
Halliwell ward
Halliwell ward
Harlor Homes
Harper Green ward
Harper Green ward
Harper Green ward
Harron Homes
(Yorkshire) Ltd
Harrow Estates plc
Harry Jackson
Surveyors Ltd.
Harworth Estates
(Division of UK Coal
PLC)
Health & Safety
Executive
Health Partnership
Heaton & Lostock
ward
Heaton & Lostock
ward
Full Name
Sharyn Lewis
Ms Teresa Hughes
Supt David Flitcroft
Mr Michael Hodge
Chief Super. David Lea
Mr Jim Green
Ms Nichola Steele
Mr Haroon Patel
Mr Andrew Thompson
Chris Goddard
Ms Jenny Hope
Carolyn Strode
Mrs K Pilkington
Halliwell Community
Transport
Cllr Cliff Morris
Cllr Linda Thomas
Cllr Akhtar Zaman
Janice Harrison
Cllr Margaret Clare
Cllr Champak Mistry
Cllr Laurence Williamson
Mr Roy Jennings
Mr Tim Booth
Mr Edward Peat
Michael Kane
Cllr Robert Allen
Cllr F. Alan Rushton
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
11
Organisation
Heaton & Lostock
ward
Heaton Planning Ltd
The Herpetological
Conservation Trust
Higham & Co
Higham & Co.
Highways Agency
Hindley Designs Ltd.
Hollins Strategic
Land
Home Builders
Federation
The Home Office
Homes &
Communities
Agency
Horwich & Blackrod
ward
Horwich & Blackrod
ward
Horwich & Blackrod
ward
Horwich
congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses
pp Horwich Golf
Club
Horwich Heritage
Horwich North East
ward
Horwich North East
ward
Horwich North East
ward
Horwich Town
Council
Horwich Vision
Limited (HVL) C/o
How Planning LLP
Hourigan Connolly
Ltd
Housing Corporation
Housing Federation
North
HOW Commercial
Planning Advisers
HOW Planning LLP
HOW Planning (pp
Alpha Investments)
HOW Planning (pp
Horwich Vision)
How Planning LLP
Hulton ward
Hulton ward
Hulton ward
Hurstwood Group
Hurstwood Group of
Companies
(in association with
Horwich Heritage)
Bolton Council
Full Name
Cllr Colin Shaw
Mr Jonathan Wall
Ms Dorothy Wright
Angela Mealing
Mr Marcus Richman
Ms Lindsay Alder
Mr S Hindley
Mr Mark Cooper
Gina Bourne
Mr David Chilton
Cllr Pat Barrow
Cllr John Barrow
Cllr Michael Hollick
Mr M Mealor
Mr F. R. Yardley
Mr Stuart Whittle
Cllr Stephen Rock
Cllr Barbara Ronson
Cllr Robert Ronson
Mrs Linda Challender
Mr Gary Halman
Mr Marc Hourigan
Mr Richard Woodford
Mr Connor Vallelly
Mr Connor Vallelly
Ms Carol Clarke
Cllr Phil Ashcroft
Cllr Andrew Morgan
Cllr Alan Walsh
Mr Neil Waddington
Mr Stephen Ashworth
J. G. Smith
Organisation
(Inclusion &
Partnership)
Indigo Planning Ltd
Indigo Planning Ltd
Institue of Advanced
Motorists
Irwell Valley Housing
Association
ITAC Ltd
J Cowpe
(Consulting) Ltd.
J E Welsby
J S Bloor Homes
J. Charlton (Bolton)
Ltd
James Campbell
Associates Ltd
Jamia Alavia
Mosque
JASP Planning (pp
River Street Assets)
JCS Homes
JEH Building
Drawing Services
The Jem
JMP Consulting
JobCentrePlus
Joint Committee of
the National Amenity
Societies
Jones Day
Jones Homes
Jones Homes
Jones Lang LaSalle
Jones Lang LaSalle
JWPC (pp the Hulton
Estate)
JWPC Ltd
JWPC Ltd
KBR Building
Consultancy
Kearsley ward
Kearsley ward
Kearsley ward
Kenroy Loft
Conversions
Keyworker Homes
North West Ltd
King Sturge
King Sturge LLP Building Consultancy
Kingfern Design Ltd.
Knight Frank LLP
Krishna Temple
L.R.A.
LA21 Transport
Working Group
Ladybridge
Residents
Association
Full Name
Carol Haydon
Ms Clare Bland
Mr Doug Hann
Roy Sammons
Mr John Fedden
Mr Paul C Armitt
Mr Welsby
Mr Peter Kilshaw
Mrs Anna Charlton
Hafiz M.S Ali
Mr Simon Pemberton
Mr Steve Jordan
Mr J Hodgson
Mr Jonathan Parsons
Barbara Hunt
Ms Angela Turner
Mr Rob Gray
Mr David Short
Mr Andy Frost
Ms Suzanne Asher
Mr Paul Tunstall
Mr John Willcock
Cllr Derek Burrows
Cllr John Rothwell
Cllr Margaret Rothwell
Mr Eian Bailey
Frazer Sandwith
Ms Gayle Taylor
Wendy Hyde
Mr G.B Patel
Mr Michael Greenhalgh
Mr S Murray
John Tudor
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
12
Organisation
Ladybridge
Residents
Association
Lambert Smith
Hampton
Lambert Smith
Hampton
The Lancashire &
Yorkshire Railway
Society
Lancashire County
Council
Lancashire Road
Club
Lancashire Wildlife
Trust
Lancaster Building
Consultants Ltd.
Land Access &
Recreation
Association
Langtree Homes
The Lawn Tennis
Association
Learning & Skills
Council
Leith Planning
Lesbian & Gay
Foundation
Levvel Ltd
Little Lever & Darcy
Lever ward
Little Lever & Darcy
Lever ward
Little Lever & Darcy
Lever ward
Little Lever Area
Office
Little Lever School
LMP Architects
Local Agenda 21
Local Chambers of
Commerce
(Local Group)
(Local Group)
Longden & Cook (pp
the Diocese of
Manchester)
Lostock & Chew
Moor Conservation
Group
Lostock Residents'
Group
Lostock Residents'
Group
Loud & Proud
Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual &
Transgender Youth
Bolton Council
Full Name
Miss Carol Greenhalgh
Ms Claire Norris
Mr Martin Nield
Mr Phil Megson
Ian Marshall
Mr Martyn Walker
Mr Tim Stevens
Mr Andrew Darbyshire
Mr Mark Fisher
Mr John Korzeniewski
Shan Dassainake
Mr Richard Bailey
Cllr Anthony Connell
Cllr Sean Colin Hornby
Cllr Mary Woodward
Little Lever School (Email)
Mr James Lawson
Mr P Cathery
Ms Michelle Geoghegan
Mr David Farrow
Mr Tony Webster
Mr Peter Townley
Mrs Mary Berry
Organisation
LSH (pp National
Offenders
Management
Service) Prison
Service
Madina Mosque
Makki Mosque
Manchester Airport
Manchester City
Council
Manchester City
Council
Manchester
Dioscesan Board of
Finance
Manchester
Methodist Housing
Association
Manchester
Methodist Housing
Association
The Manchester,
Bolton & Bury Canal
Society
The Manchester,
Bolton & Bury Canal
Society
Manor Kingdom
(Central) Ltd
Manor Kingdom
(Central) Ltd
Masjid E-Noor-UlIslam
Masonwood
Architectural
Consultants Ltd.
Matthews &
Son,Chartered
Surveyors
Matthews &
Goodman
Matthews &
Goodman
MAZE Planning
Solutions
McCarthy & Stone
Retirement Lifestyles
Ltd. / The Planning
Bureau
McDermott
Developments Ltd
McDyre @ Co.
Mr Roy Walmsley
Dr Margaret M F Collier
McInerney Homes
McInerney Homes
McInerney Homes
MCP Planning
MCP Planning &
Development
MEP
MEP
MEP
Full Name
Mr Kevin Gleeson
Mr Sabir Khan
Mr Ismail Adam
Mr Andrew Murray
Roger Hough
Gloria Ighodaro
Mr Peter Bojar
Mr Matthew Harrison
Mr John Fletcher
Mr Alan Hodson
Mr Greg Mulligan
Dr Sarah Payne
Mr Sabir Adam
Mr Simon Treacy
Mr Steve Buckely
Eugene Mullan
Mr Andrew Watt
Mr Matthew Shellum
Mr Andrew Darbyshire
Mr Bejamin Charles
McDyre
Mr Nick Roberts
Mr Andrew Garnett
Mr Mathew King
Tamsin Cowley
Mr Tony McAteer
Mr Sajjad Karim
Mr Paul Nuttall
Mr Chris Davies
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
13
Organisation
Full Name
Organisation
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
Mersey Basin
Campaign
Miller Homes Ltd
Miller Homes Ltd
MJM Design
Services
Mobile Operators
Association
Morris Homes Ltd
Morrison's
Supermarkets Plc
C/o Peacock &
Smith
Mosaic Town
Planning
Mosaic Town
Planning
MP
MP
MP
MP
Mr Partington
N Power
Renewables
Nathaniel Lichfield &
Partners
National Farmers
Union North West
Region
National Grid
National Grid
National Playing
Fields Association
The National Trust
Natural England
Natural England
Natural England
Neil Pike
Architecture Limited
Network Rail
Network Rail
(Minerals & Waste
Team)
New Bolton Somali
Community
Association
New Earth Solutions
Limited
New Testament
Church of God
Nightingale & Co
Solicitors
NJL Consulting Ltd
Nolan Redshaw Ltd
Mrs Arlene McCarthy
Mr Brian Simpson
Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins
Mr Nick Griffin
Ms Jacqueline Foster
North British
Housing - Places for
People
North Turton Parish
Council
North West Age UK
North West Regional
Development
Agency
North West Regional
Leaders Board
North West Strategic
Health Authority
North West Tamil
Association
Northern Rail
Northern Rail
Northern Rail
O2 (UK) Ltd
Octagon Theatre
Trust
Office of
Government
Commerce
Open Golf & Leisure
Limited
Open Golf & Leisure
Limited
Open Space Society
Orange Personal
Communications
Services Ltd
ORC Partnership,
The
Over Hulton
Community Group
P J LIVESEY
GROUP LIMITED
P. Wilson &
Company
Pakistan Muslim
Organisation
Parkinson
Commercial Property
Consultants
Partington &
Associates
Paul Butler
Associates
Paul Smith Design
Services
PCE Designs
Peacock & Smith
Peel Holdings
Limited
Persimmon Homes
(North West) Ltd
Persimmon Homes
(North West) Ltd
Places for People
Developments
Bolton Council
Sophia Fleming
Mr Tim Williams
Mr M Minshall
Ms Carolyn Wilson
Mr Andrew Thompson
Mr Leon Armstrong
Mr Paul Williams
Mr David Crausby
Mr David Crausby
Ms Julie Hilling
Ms Yasmin Qureshi
Mr Partington
Mr Andrew Bower
Mr Anthony Greally
Mr Terry Abbott
Rosie Eyre
Mr Alan Hubbard
Ms Janet Belfield
Mr Stephen Hedley
Ms Janet Baguley
Mr Neil Pike
Ms Diane Clarke
Mr Hussein Ahmed
Mr Ted Bleszynski
Mr Morris
Mrs Angeline Humphreys
Katya Samokhvalova
Mr Mike Redshaw
Full Name
Mr John Wright
Mrs Glenys Syddall
Mrs Helen Jackson
Mr Steven Broomhead
Mr Michael Gallagher
Mr V Manivanan
Mark Baker
Martyn Guiver
Graham Large
Mr S Vijars
Mr John Blackmore
Mr Robin Day
Mr Robin Day
Mr T Drew
Mr Rob Wilkinson
David Hardman
Mr Steven Alcock
Mr A Winthrop
Samee Ditta
Mr Tony Bellis
J.R Partington
Ms Sarah Smith
Mr Ed Kemsley
Mr Philip Rothwell
Ms Diane Aldcroft
Mr Simon Miller
Claire Morris
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
14
Organisation
PLANiT WRiGHT
Town Planning
Consultancy &
Development
Services
Planning Aid
The Planning Bureau
Limited
The Planning Bureau
Ltd
(Planning
Consultant)
Planning Potential
Plot of Gold
Post Office Property
Holdings
PRDS
Pritchard Associates
Probation Service
Prosperity for Life
PWL Architects
R.A.Fisk &
Associates
Rail Passenger
Committee for the
North West
Railtrack PLC
The Ramblers
Association Bolton
Group
The Ramblers
Association
Manchester Area
Rapleys (pp B&E
Boys)
Red Moss Action
Committee
Red Rose Forest
Redrow Homes
Redrow Homes
Refugee Action
RELATE (Greater
Manchester North)
Repect Advocacy
Project
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
Bolton Council
Full Name
Organisation
Linda Wright
Jan Beaumont
Jane Crass
Mr Alexander J. Bateman
Mr Brian Legan
Ms Kate Sewell
Mr Robert Taylor
Mr Philip Rothwell
Mr Harvey Pritchard
John Brimley
Mr Otis Johnson
Mr Kurt Metcalfe
Mrs Glenys Syddall
Mr M J Short
Jackie Roberts
Mrs Janet Cuff
Mr Mike Gibson
Mr B Thornton
Mr Nigel Blandford
Mr Robin Buckley
Mr Stuart Binks
Anna Webster
Steve Griffiths
Mr Donald Gayle
Mrs Brenda Berry
Mrs Mary T Smith
Mr Bernard Ramsden
Mrs Vera Hanlon
Mrs Katherine Walker
Mrs Jean Key
Mrs Marilyn Woods
Mr R Lilley
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
(Resident
Association)
Road Haulage
Association
Roger Tym &
Partners
Rok (Bolton)
Rowland Homes Ltd
Royal Commision on
the Historical
Monuments of
England
Royal Town
Planning Institute
Royalle Estates
Rps Group
RPS Planning &
Development
RPS Planning &
Development
RPS Planning &
Development Limited
(pp Acland Bracewell
Management Ltd)
RSPB
The RSPB
Rumworth ward
Rumworth ward
Rumworth ward
Russell Homes
RYA
Salford City Council
Salford City Council
Salford City Council
Salus Ltd.
Sanderson
Weatherall
Savills
Savills
Savills (pp USB
Triton Property
Fund)
Seddon Homes
Limited
Sedgwick Associates
Sedgwick Associates
(pp SHMR)
Shire Consulting (pp
Barclays Bank)
Full Name
Mrs Ann Crane
Mrs Helen Ireland
Mr Stephen Rock
Mr Paula Adamson
Mrs Christine Watson
Mrs V Adams
Mrs Jean Wrennall
Mr Michael Hollis
Ms Kerry Whittle
Mr David Gray
Mr Joseph Keller
G Gardener
Mr Mark Krassowski
Ms Emily Latham
Mr Hugh Smith
Mr T Melling
Mr Andrew Gouldstone
Cllr Ebrahim Adia
Cllr Ismail Ibrahim
Cllr Rosa Kay
Mr Daniel Kershaw
Ms Jennifer Cadd
Mr Chris Findley
Mr Jimmy McManus
Will Mulvany
Mr Tim Price
Mr Tristan Wooler
Mr James McAllisterJones
Mr Ryan Watson
Brenda Sedgwick
Mr Paul Sedgwick
Mr Michael Fearn
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
15
Organisation
Showman's Guild of
GB Lancs, Cheshire
& North Wales
Section
Shree Kutch Leva
Patel Society
Shree Kutch
Satsang
Swaminarayan
Temple
Shree Prajapati
Association
Shree Sorathia
Prajapati Community
UK
SJS Property
Management
Smithills ward
Smithills ward
Smithills ward
Snydale Residents
Association
Society for the
Protection of Ancient
Buildings
South Lancashire
Bat Group
Spatial Planning
Spawforths
Sport England
Sport England
SSSS Youth
Association
StageCoach
NorthWest
StageCoach
NorthWest
Stanley Langley
Holdings
Steele Associates
The Step by Step
Project
Steve Brougham
Architect
Steven Abbott
Associates
Steven Abbott
Associates
Steven Abbott
Associates
Steven Abbott
Associates (pp Mike
James Properties)
Steven Abbott
Associates (pp
Professional Designs
Ltd)
Stewart Milne
Homes
Stewart Ross
Associates
Bolton Council
Full Name
Mrs V.E Midgley
Mr D K Seyani
Mr Manji Halai
Iswar Mistry
Mr M M Singadia
Mr C Hall
Cllr Roger Hayes
Cllr Richard Silvester
Cllr Carole Swarbrick
Mr Chris Green
Mr Steve Parker
Mr Paul Walker
Ms Jennifer Peacock
Mr Paul Daly
Narendra Bojani
John Dickinson
Brian Rose
Mrs D Langley
Gerard Thomas
Mr Steven H Abbott
Mr Christie J. McDonald
Mr Harry Tonge
Mr Alastair Skelton
Mr Alastair Skelton
Mr Ian Fogg
Mr Stewart Ross
Organisation
Stewart Ross
Associates
Storeys:SSP
Strategic housing
Strategic Land
Partnerships
Street Design
Partnership
Stronger
Communities
Partnership
Strutt & Parker
Strutt & Parker
The Sudanese
Community of Bolton
- Muslim Group
Sughra Mosque
Sutcliffe Properties
Swaminarayan
Sidhat Mandal
SWAN
T Mobile (UK) Ltd
T Mobile (UK) Ltd
T. Sutcliffe & Co.
Ltd.
Tarmac
Taylor Wimpey
Taylor Wimpey
Limited
Taylor Wimpey UK
Ltd
Taylor Wimpey UK
Ltd
Taylor Woodrow
Developments
Limited
Taylor Young
The Theatres Trust
Tom Myerscough &
Co.
Tonge with the
Haulgh ward
Tonge with the
Haulgh ward
Tonge with the
Haulgh ward
Tony Thorpe
Associates
Town & Country
Planning Association
Trade Unions
Representative
Trades Council
Traveller Law
Reform Coalition
Turley Associates
Turley Associates
Turley Associates
(pp Bellway Homes
(Manchester) Ltd)
Full Name
Ms Laura Ross
Ms Jane Everett
Jeff Smethurst
Mr Tim Baker
Mr Paul Carr
Michael Kane
Mr Gareth Conroy
Mr R W Fearnall
Tareg Abaka
Mr Bashir Ahmed
Mr & Mrs C Brown
Mr Kimji
Mr David Chadwick
Mr Nick Atkins
Mr Paul Smith
Mr Mark Calvert
Mr G M Swann
Mr Andrew Thorley
Mr Derek Webber
Mr Guy Pearson
Ms Rose Freeman
Cllr Nicholas Peel
Cllr Elaine Sherrington
Cllr Frank White
Martin McLoughlin
Martin Challender
Mr Lindsay Whitley
Ms Samantha Ryan
David Diggle
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
16
Organisation
Turley Associates
(pp Sainsbury's
Supermarkets Ltd)
Turley Associates
(pp Sainsbury's
Supermarkets Ltd)
Turley Associates pp
Sainsburys
Turner & Partners
The Twentieth
Century Society
UK Coal Mining
Ltd/RJB Mining UK
Ltd
United Utilities
Property Services
University of Bolton
University of Bolton
The Victorian
Society
Vincent & Gorbing
Vincent & Gorbing
Vincent & Gorbing
Vincent & Gorbing
(pp SJS Property
Management Ltd)
Vincent Gorbing (pp
SJS property
management)
Virgin Trains
Viridor
Vishwa Hindu
Parishad
Vodafone
Vodafone Ltd
Wainhomes (North
West) Limited
Wainhomes (North
West) Limited
Walton & Co
Planning Lawyers
Watkin Jones &
Sons Ltd
West Didsbury
Residents
Association (&
member of ARGSL)
Westbury Homes
Ltd/Wain Estates Ltd
Westhoughton North
& Chew Moor ward
Westhoughton North
& Chew Moor ward
Westhoughton North
& Chew Moor ward
Westhoughton South
ward
Westhoughton South
ward
Westhoughton South
ward
Bolton Council
Full Name
Ms Becki Haines
Mr Bob May
Mr Greg Dickson
Robin Henderson
Mr J Dickinson
Mr Andrew Leyssens
Laurette Evans
Ms Sue Duncan
Organisation
Westhoughton Town
Council
White Young Green Planning
Whitehead & Co
Wigan Council
William Sutton
Housing Association
Wing Under Bolton
Living Waters
International
Wolsey Securities
Ltd
Women's National
Commission
Woodford Land Ltd
The Woodland Trust
The Woodland Trust
Yew Developments
Full Name
Mrs Christine Morris
Mr Paul Shuker
Mr Tony Whitehead
Mr D Kearsley
Ms Angela Garrard
Robbie Chiphaliwali
Mr Shaun Kerfoot
Mr Phil Whitehouse
Mr E Pomfret
Mr Nick Sandford
Mr Martin Hodgkiss
Hannah Philip
Mr Mark Wilson
Claire McIntosh
Martin Friend
Mr Mark Wilson
Mr Peter Wishart
Mr Uttambhai D Mistry
Louise Ellet
Rebecca George
Mr Peter Barlow
Mr Andy Laing
Ms Vicki Richardson
Mr Andy Shaw
Ms Alison Hunt
Cllr Pat Allen
Cllr John Richard Higson
Cllr Christine Wild
Cllr David Chadwick
Cllr Julia Silvester
Cllr David Wilkinson
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
17
2b:
People with no stated organisation who were sent the call for sites letter
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Mr & Mrs Samantha
& Rick Abram
Wendy Adamson
Louise Adamson
Justine Adamson
Wendy Adamson
Nafisah Ahmad
Marian Ainscough
Mrs / Mr M & J
Ainscough
Mrs / Mr J & I
Ainscough
Mrs Ainscough
Ammara Akram
Umair Akram
Saeed Al Hakeem
Miss Albarracin
Mrs Aldcroft
Patricia Aldred
R Aldred
Cllr Bob Allan
Ian Anderson
P.L Anderson
Mr Peter Anderson
Robert Anderson
Rev. John Armstrong
Maggy Ashton
Mr Robert Ashton
Rosemary Ashworth
Ray Atherton
Mrs Marian Bailey
Joan Bailey
Mr & Mrs Robert &
Elaine Baker
Sharon Balderstone
Mrs D. H. Ball
Mr & Mrs Ball
Mrs Jennifer
Bamford
Mr Clifford Bannister
Mr Tom Bannister
Mr Robert Fawcett &
Barbara Jackson
Eileen Barlow
Christine Barlow
Mrs A. Barnes &
family
Ms Kath Baron
Mr Kevin Bates
Mr & Mrs H Bateson
E & J Beardmore
Mr & Mrs
Beardsworth
Mrs Pamela
Beaumont
Mr Derek Beek
Mr Greg Bell
Simon Bennett
B. W. Bent
B.W Bent
Mr S Bentley
Andrew Berry
Kathryn Berry
Mr Colin Berry
K & S Berry
Janice & David
Berry/Leonard
Mr & Mrs M Best
J & N Bickerstaff
Mrs K Birchall
Mr M. C. Birchall
Ms Gale Blackburn
Mr Tony Blackhouse
E M Blackledge
Lindsay Blantern
Mr Andrew
Boardman
Mr Ronald
Boardman
Mrs D Boddy
Mrs / Mr Gillian &
Adrian Bodie
Pat Bodie
Mrs Paula Bolton
V.A & C.F Bonnett
Mr & Mrs M Booth
R Booth
Michael Booth
Mr John Booth
Mrs Elizabeth Booth
Mr Francis Booth
Mrs E.G Bootle
Ms Lorna Bousfield
Mr S Braddock
J & G Bradley
Margaret Bradley
David Bradshaw
Mrs Kathleen Brian
David Bridge
Mr & Mrs Alan &
Marilyn Brindle
Phil Broadhurst
Mr V Brodrick
C.H & J Brooke
Simon Brooks
Miss Katie Brown
Tracy Brown
Christine Brown
Chloe Brown
S & M Bryan
R Bullough
Mr Eddie Burgess
Mr V Burgess
M Burgess
E Burton
David Butcher
J Butt
Mr John Byron
Mrs J Caine
Mr Doug Cameron
Denise Camm
Patricia Cannon
J.J Cansfield
Pascal Carton
Mrs Barbara
Catterall
Mr C.G. Catterall
M & J Chadwick
Mrs Linda Chadwick
Mr & Mrs Andrew /
Jo Chadwick/Welsh
C Chambers
Mr / Mrs Barry &
Lynda Charlton
Mrs L.D Charlton
K Charnock
Kieran Cheetham
K & M Chow
Emma Christey
Ms Lawson Christine
Paul Christy
Mr & Mrs Clarke
Arthur Clemmett
Emily Clift
Mr Thomas Clowes
Mrs Lynda Clutton
Mr Neil Coe
Eileen Collier
Mr / Mrs J Collier
Mrs C Concannon
Mr / Mrs B & A
Conway
Mrs Anne-Marie
Conway
Jacqui & Graham
Cook
Mabel Cook
Mrs E Cooke
SP Cookson
Mr S.J Coope
Mr John Coope
Mrs A Cooper
J & J Cooper
Mr Robert Costello
Tony Cottram
B Coubert
Mrs M. Cowburn
Miss Samantha
Coyle
Mrs Ena Coyle
Mrs Ann Craven
Carole Crawley
Delyse Critchley
Mr L Croft
Gloria & Keith Cross
Mr Preva Crossley
W & J Croughan
Mrs Vera Cryer
Geoff Cubbin
Mrs Barbara Culver
Mr Phillip Cunliffe
J Currie
Richard Curtii
Cynthia Dagnall
Mr Jan Darasz
Pat Darbyshire
Louise Darbyshire
Graham & Julia
Davies
Ceinwen Davies
Julia Davies
Tina Davies
Rev. Julia Davies
W.F , J.R & R Day
Mr & Mrs D.A & D
Dean
Yvonne Dickenson
Ms Julia Dixon
Mr & Mrs V Dobbs
Mr & Mrs James &
Lorraine Dobson
Elizabeth/B
Dood/Taylor
Joanne Dore
Ruth Duckworth
Mrs C Duckworth
Mr Deryck M. Dulson
Ms Susan Dunning
Kitty Dwyer
Rob Dyson
Stuart, James,
James, Edwin Earith
Mrs / Mr Jan & Geoff
Eastham
William & Angela
Eaton
Rita & Robert Eaton
R & K Eccleshare
R Eckersley
Mr Jack Eckersley
Mr & Mrs Harold &
Margaret
Edmondson
Mr T Edwards
K Eggleton
Mr & Mrs Ellis
Mrs Sheila Ellwood
Ian Entwistle
J Evans
Mr Robert Evans
Mr Evans
Brian Fairclough
Mr & Mrs G
Fairclough
H & G.E Fairclough
Dr Margaret
Fairhurst
F & N Fairhurst
S Falla
Mr & Mrs A Farley
W & N Farnell
Mr David Farnworth
Mrs Betty Farr
Bolton Council
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
18
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Mr / Mrs Derek &
Barbara Farrimond
Mr David Farrow
Mrs / Mr Lynne &
Jim Fearick
Mr & Mrs James &
Lynne Fearick
Mrs / Mrs Christine &
Helen Fee
Miss Margaret Fields
Mrs / Mr Evelyn &
Alan Fishwick
John Fleming
Ms Deborah Fleming
Iris Flemming
John Fletcher
Mr Tom Fletcher
Jan / Grace Fletcher
/ Cousen
Sean Ford
Jeremy Foster
Susan Foster
Alan Fox
Mr Roy.J Fozard
Mike Francis
B & R Fretwell
Brian Gardner
Mr William Garside
Mr Steve Garside
Iris Gatley
B Gee
Frances Gentry
E.A & R German
Jimi Gibbins
Mr Jeff Gibson
Cllr Jim Gilfillan
Andrew Glithero
Linda Glithero
Mr & Mrs P & L
Golbourne
Adrian Gollard
Peter Gore
Karen Graham
Mrs / Mr Lynden &
Stephen Graham
Dr Helen Graham
Mr Chris Green
Mr F Green
Mrs J Green
Mrs J Greenhalgh
M. R. Gregory
Mr Chris Gregory
Gillian Gregory
Mrs Eileen Gregory
Nelle Gribbin
Jacky & Andy
Gribbin
Mr & Mrs Tony &
June Griffin
Mrs / Mr Joan & Bill
Grime
Mr John Grime
Mr Peter Grimshaw
Zoe Grundy
F Grundy
Mr & Mrs Grundy
Brian & Enid Hall
Madeleine Hall
Mike Hallam
Genna Halliwell
Cath Hamilton
Geoff & Ann Hamlett
Mr & Mrs D
Hampson
B & J Hands
Mrs Joyce
Hankinson
Mr & Mrs N Hansford
Doreen & David
Hardman
Jasmin, David &
Amanda Hardman
Wayne Hardman
Bernard, David &
Linda Hardy
Mr & Mrs Harper
Mr & Mrs J Harrison
Mr & Mrs Norman &
Judith Harrison
Jenny Harrison
Mr Arnold Harrison
Mr & Mrs P & J
Harrison
Lisa Harrison
Mr & Mrs Neil &
Jacki Harrison
Mrs / Mr Mary &
Doug Harrow
J.B & M Hart
Mr Alan Hart
Jean Hart
Mr & Mrs John
Haslam
Carol Haslam
David Hawkins
William Hawthorne
Elizabeth Hayes
Mrs D. M. Heald
Lynda Healey
P & H Heathcote
Colin Heaton
Mr Michael Heaton
Mr / Mrs Peter/Linda
Heaton/White
Mr Tom Heavyside
Dave Helene
W Henniker
Mr John Heseltine
Mr Simon Heyes
Norma Hibbert
Ms H. Hibbert
John & Dorothy
Higham
Angie & Joanne
Hill/Evison
Mrs Julie Hilling
Peter Hilton
D & M Hindley
Mr Paul Hinkinson
Mr M Hirst
Mr & Mrs Allan /
Eileen Hodge
Mr & Mrs Hodge
Mrs Hodgekiss
Mrs Edith Hodgson
Margaret Hodson
Mr John Holdbrook
Vera & Hillary
Holden
Mr Mark Holehouse
Anne Holroyd
Mr Paul Holt
Mr & Mrs M
Horsefield
Mr R Houghton
I & S Howard
Samantha Howard
Sue Howarth
Barry Howarth
Mr J.A. Howarth
Hannah, Helen &
Steven Howarth
Ron Howarth
Rick Howcroft
Ken & Lynda Howe
Mrs Rosemary
Howell
Holly Hughes
Mr / Mrs Len / Ann
Hughes / Barton
Mrs Rosemary
Humphreys
Emma Hunt
Mr Keiron Hunter
Sandra & Ian Hurst
Ms Linda Hurst
Mr & Mrs R Hurst
Mr Andrew Iredale
Mr Richard
Isherwood
Louise Jackson
Eileen Jackson
Mr & Mrs Jackson
Mr Barry Jackson
Angela Jackson
Bethan Jackson
Jenifer Jackson
Jennifer Jackson
Pamela Jackson
Sian Jackson
Mr Mark James
Mr & Mrs Mike &
Anne Jeffries
Mr Barrie Jeffries
Mr W Johnson
Mr Andrew Johnson
Mr Simon Johnson
Mrs Christine
Johnson
Mr Robert Johnston
D Johnston
Julie/Anthony
Johnston/Willcock
Enid Jones
K Jones
Mr & Mrs Jones
W Jones
Mrs S Jones
Mr Darren Jones
Mrs Suzanne Jones
Mr Jones
Barry Jubb
Jesamine Kay
Samantha Kay
Alex Kay
Barbara Keeley, MP
Mrs Lindsey Kell
Mr J Kelleher
John Kelly
Mr R Kenyon
Mrs O.M Kenyon
Barbara Kershaw
D & Brenda Kershaw
Rachael Kirkby
Mr David Kirkman
Miss Joyce Knight
Carol Knowles
Mr Oliver Lancaster
Mr Lawrence
Langford
Mr Robert Larkinson
Jean Laurie
Mr J.B Leonard
A Leonard
Mr & Mrs Andrew &
Toni Lilley
Mr & Mrs Brian Ruth
Linforth
Mr Stuart Lingard
John Lippiatt
Mrs Jane Livesey
Mrs Dorothy Livesey
D Locker
Mr John Loder
Mr Steve Lomas
Mr Bob Lomax
Mr & Mrs Lomax
Michael & Jennifer
Lomax
Mr R Lomax
T Lonsdale
Mr Robert Lowe
T Lowe
Sandra Lucas
Mrs Gwen Lucas
Mr Zuber Lulat
Mr & Mrs Shirley &
Robert Macdonald
Mr Macdonald
Mr I Macdougall
Bolton Council
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
19
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Mrs / Miss
Dorothy/Bernadette
Macdougall
Kathrine Maddock
Mrs & Mr C.A & P
Makin
Jeffrey Mangnall
Mr / Mrs D & G
Mangnall
K & M Mann
Ms Cheryl MarsdenMcGlynn
Mr J. A. Marshall
Mrs Wynn Marshall
Audrey Marsland
Mr / Mrs Alan &
Jacquie Martin
Mr J Massey
Mr & Mrs G Matlew
H Matthews
Mr S. J. McCabe
S/B
McCabe/Whitehead
Doris & Connor
McCloud
Mr / Mrs Allan &
Julie Mckevitt
Mr & Mrs Stuart &
Sylvia Mckinstry
Derek Meacher
Kevan Mealor
Chris Menand
Mrs Joan Messer
Mr Partington
Michael
A & H Middlebrook
Mrs / Mr Anne &
John Miles
Mr & Mrs C Miller
Mr T Miller
Mr Trevor Moorcroft
E & T Moorecroft
Cllr Andrew Morgan
Mr Ernest Morgan
Terry & Janet Morley
Mr & Mrs A.B. Morris
Mrs / Mr Anna &
John Morris
John Morris
Mr Richard Mortimer
Mr & Mrs G & B
Moss
Mr Kirk Mulhearn
Aziz Mulla
Mr Geoffrey
Mullineaux
Carol Ann Mulvaney
Elizabeth Munro
Julie / Kenneth
Murphy/Walker
Ron Murray
Joyce Nelson
Miss Heather Nelson
Mrs New
C Newton
Grace Nightingale
Sheila & Terry Nixon
Christa Noble
Jim & Doreen Norris
Mr Francis Nurtney
Mr & Mrs Francis &
Lynda Nurtney
Mr & Mrs James &
Denise Nuttall
Mr / Mrs Graham &
Lynda Nuttall
Mr / Mrs Phil & Kath
Nuttall
Mr Edward Nuttall
Mrs Denise Nuttall
Derek & Eileen Ode
Mr Gary Oldfield
Mr Gordon Ord
Mr Michael Ord
O'Reilly
Florence Ormrod
G & J Orrel
Mr Geoffrey Orrell
Mr Laurence Owens
Mr Richard Parker
Florence Parkes
Steven, Stephanie,
Elizabeth & Diane
Parkinson
James Parkinson
Irene & Bill
Parkinson
Mrs Jacqueline
Parkinson
Simon ParkinsonJones
Anna Parrott
Mrs Anna Parrott
Mr Clive Parrott
Mr & Mrs Stewart &
Sarah Partington
Vinodbhai Patel
Smit Patel
Aarti Patel
B Pearce
Jean Pegg
J Pemberton
Yasmin & Jordana /
Julie Pemberton /
Webster
A & L Pendlebury
Mrs Jennifer Perry
Ms Rozmarie Peters
B & CH Peters
Phil & John
Mr & Mrs L
Pilkington
Albert Pilling
Mr & Mrs Frank &
Olwen Pimblett
Dave & Anne
Pinnington
George Platt
Mr Michael Platt
Mr & Mrs Sylvia &
Arnold Pollitt
Mrs / Mr Margaret &
David Porter
D&E Powell
Mrs Debra Pratt
Mr & Mrs W A
Prescott
B/L Prescott/Hardy
John Price
Mrs E Price
Vivien Price
Vicky Protano
Douglas Pryce
Mr M Purdy
D Purnell
Mrs Hannah Pursall
Mrs Helen Quigley
Mr & Mrs Joseph &
Maureen Radcliffe
Mr / Mrs Stewart &
Vivien Ralph
Darren, Dawn &
Joely Randle
P.J Ranicar
D.W, E & Alan
Ratcliffe
A Read
Mrs J Read
Mrs Joyce Reed
Mr D Regan
E Rennie
Alan Rhodes
Mr & Mrs David &
Susan Richards
Mr Robert
Richardson
Mr & Mrs A Riley
Mrs F Riley
Mrs Marjorie Riley
Terence Riley
Mr Paul Rimmer
Paul Risby
Mike & Joan Risley
Mr William Roberts
G & W / Marshall
Roberts / Smith
Keith Robins
Mr Brian Robinson
Mr / Mrs William &
Joan Rogers
J/F Rogerson/Berry
Mr Ronald Roodnat
Cllr (Mr) John
Rothwell
Mr & Mrs J Roughley
Mr Robert Rowell
Mr & Mrs Roy &
Doreen Rowland
Mr / Mrs
Stephen/Elizabeth
Rowland
Mr Ken Rowland
Mr Michael Rowley
Jennie Russell
Mr & Mrs Ryan
Mr Stuart Ryan
Mrs F Ryley
Menhel Saleh
Mrs J Salter
Andrew Sanderson
Cathy Savage
Karen Saxon
Joan Schofield
Mrs Denise Scott
Victoria Scowcroft
Syed-Makki Shah
Shaf Shaik
Mr Shallicker
D Sharplin
Mr & Mrs Arnold &
Barbara Sharrock
Frances Sharrouk
Brian & Helen Shaw
Mr & Mrs B Shaw
Mr & Mrs M & D
Shaw
Alan Neil & Kathy
Shaw
Mr Thomas Shaw
Mr & Mrs Alan &
Gillian Shaw
E Shepherd
Mr & Mrs Sherratt
Miss Nadia Siddiqui
Howard Sidlow
Ellen & Samuel
Simkiss
G Simm
Mrs Kathryn
Simmons
Mr Singh
Jan & Andy Sloan
James Peter Smith
Robin Smith
Mr Smith
Mr / Mrs Bernard &
Julie Smith
Mr Rob Smith
Mr A Smith
Mr Ian Smith
Mr Warren Smith
Mr James Smith
Mr Andrew Smith
Mr & Mrs Robert &
Barbara Sofield
R & J Solomon
Neville Southern
Mr & Mrs J.B.
Southern
Mr Andrew Southern
Norma Southworth
Bolton Council
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
20
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Full Name
Mrs Jean
Southworth
Michael & Cath
Spragg/Marlor
Mrs A.P Starkey
Mr Bryan Stears
Mrs Mildred
Stevenson
Mark & Julie
Stevenson
Mr Andrew Stewart
Andrew & Alison
Storey
Mr Ron Stower
Mr Henry Stringer
Alan Stubbs
Mrs Sharon Sturgess
Ms Che Such
Mrs Clare Sutton
Debra Swindells
Mr Raymond
Swindells
Dorothy Syddall
Mr Andrew & Jane
Tatloc
Mr Alan Taylor
Judith & Alan Taylor
Mr Keith Taylor
Deborah, Michael &
Morgan Taylor
Mr Alan Taylor
Rachael Taylor
Ben & Rachel Taylor
& Clarke
J & T.N Theaker
Pamela Thompson
G.K Thompson
G Thompson
Angela Thompson
Valerie Thornley
Amber Threlfall
Mr & Mrs Tomlinson
Ms Louise Toone
Mr & Mrs Rosemary
& Dennis Topping
Mrs R Topping
Marie Turner
Mr Alan Turner
Fred & Ellen
Tyldesley
Mr Graeme Tyrrell
Mr & Mrs G & J
Unsworth
Mr Graham
Unsworth
Mr William Usher
Mr & Mrs Phillip &
Joan Valjalo
Mrs Joan Vanes
Veena Vara
Susan Viney
J & K Waddington
Sharon Walkden
Teresa Walker
Mrs Olive Walker
Mr & Mrs Walker
Miss Barbara
Walmsley
Walter Walsh
Christine Walsh
Peter & Jocelyn
Walsh
Mrs Jean M Walsh
Margaret Walsh
Mr & Mrs Dave &
Alma Walsh
Cllr Alan Walsh
Mr Graham Walsh
Edith Wardley
Mr Simon Warford
Pat Warner
David Warner
Christina Watson
Mr Anthony Webster
Ms Julie Webster
Caroline Weekes
Joyce Whitehead
Irene Whitehead
Miss Janine
Whittaker
Miss Diane
Whittaker
Mr Ken Whitworth
Denise Wilkinson
R & J Wilkinson
Mr P Wilkinson
Mr Raymond
Wilkinson
Roger Williams
Daisy Williams
Mr Kenneth Williams
Mr & Mrs Tom &
Kate Williams
Mr Brian Williams
Mr S. J. Williams
Mr Kenneth Williams
Mr Sydney Williams
Mr D Williamson
Julia & Peter Wills
Mr Peter Wills
Angela Wilson
Miss Joyce Wilson
Susan Wilson
A & AC Wilson
Lynda Winrow
Ms M Withington
Mr D. G. Wood
Graham Wood
Mr Donald Wood
Mr John R. Woods
J Woods
P & V Woodward
Brenda Wright
Mr Steven Wright
Mr & Mrs W Wright
Mrs Brenda Wright
Brian Wroe
Mr David Wyatt
Mr John Wynne
Josephine WynneEyton
David Yates
J.A. Yates
Phil & John Yates
Mr Adrian Yates
Mr John Yates
Mrs Vivienne Young
Mr Tom Young
Mr Young
Deborah/Ian
Young/Anderson
Bolton Council
Appendix 2: A list of recipients of the call for sites letter
21
Appendix 3
A list of responses to the call for sites
Originator
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
The Emerson Group
B&E Boys
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
JWPC (Peel)
DTZ (Harworth Estates)
GM Vacs Edgar Street
Drivers Jonas Deloitte ASK and Bluemantle
Graham Ball (Thomas Pendlebury)
Graham Ball (Thomas Pendlebury)
Graham Ball (Thomas Pendlebury)
The Emerson Group
P Wilson and company
P Wilson and company
P Wilson and company
Indigo (Redscape Limited)
Patrick Clinton
Patrick Clinton
Savills (UBS Triton Property Fund)
Mrs Marjorie Riley
Mrs Marjorie Riley
Michael and Jennifer Lomax
Persimmon
A R Partington
Taylor Wimpey
The Southern Family
Julia Dixon
Simon Artiss (Bellway Homes)
Redrow Homes
Tarmac
Paul Sedgwick
Turley Associates
Turley Associates
How Planning
Mr Kenneth Thompson
Sydney Williams
Bolton Council
Site name
SHLAA site 11 Land at Moss Bank Way Markland Hill
SHLAA site 949 Carlton Road Heaton
SHLAA site 31 Land at Heaton Grange Heaton
SHLAA site 1128 Dove Mill, Deane Church Lane, Deane
SHLAA site 973 Dealey Road, Higher Deane
SHLAA site 10 Part of Ladybridge High School, Wigan Road
SHLAA site 972 Green Hill Lane (Armdale Road), Higher Deane
New Tempest Road
Former Sandusky/Walmsley Kentmere Drive/Crompton Way
Land at Roscoes Farm, Westhoughton
Land at Syndale Gate Farm
Hulton Parkland
Land at Hunger Hill
Land at Garnett Fold, St Helen's Road
Land South East of Snydale Way
Land south of Branker Street, Manchester Road
Cutacre
Edgar Street Bolton
Church Wharf
Land north east of Blackrod bypass Blackrod
Gibb Farm
Gibb Farm (out parcel)
Gibb Farm (SHLAA 1059,1060 and 1088) NB site revisions
Suckling Calf Farm Old Lane Horwich
Lee Hall Westhoughton
Leigh Common Westhoughton
Land east of Chew Moor Lane
Radcliffe Road (Caravan Storage)
Radcliffe Road (adjacent site)
Bolton Shopping Park
Horrocks Fold Farm, Belmont Road
Bank Top Astley Bridge (details already supplied)
Land south of Radcliffe Road
Lee Hall Westhoughton
Gibb Farm
Ditchers Farm Westhoughton
Land adjoining Blue Bell Farm, Chorley Road, Westhoughton
Edges Farm, Leigh Road Westhoughton
Bowlands Hey!
Green Lane Horwich
Stope Road Little Lever
Templecombe Drive/Belmont Road
Sainsbury's Supermarket Bolton Town Centre
Sainsbury's Supermarket Cricketer's Way
Waterside Business Park Smiths Road
Kiln Field Bromley Cross
Lee Hall Westhoughton
Appendix 3: The letter of consultation for Allocations Plan scoping
22
Originator
Transport for Greater Manchester
Transport for Greater Manchester
Transport for Greater Manchester
Bolton Council
Site name
Park and Ride Sites Blackrod
Park and Ride Sites Horwich Parkway
Trinity Interchange
Appendix 3: The letter of consultation for Allocations Plan scoping
23
Appendix 4
Date:
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
The letter of consultation for Allocations Plan scoping
15th July 2011
PS/SG/UG27
Planning Strategy,
Development and Regeneration
3rd Floor, Bolton Town Hall
Bolton
BL1 1RU
Tel:
01204 333333
www.bolton.gov.uk
Dear [Sir or Madam],
Bolton Allocations Plan – consultation on scope
The council adopted Bolton’s Core Strategy on 2nd March 2011. It is now at an early stage in the
preparation of an Allocations Plan. The Core Strategy provides a strategic approach to the
planning of Bolton over the next 15 years, but with the exception of the former Horwich Loco
Works, it has not amended the existing 2005 Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map; nor has it
replaced all of the UDP’s policies. The Allocations Plan will bring the Development Plan Proposals
Map up to date, and act as a replacement for those UDP policies that are still in force.
The attached document about the Allocations Plan contains three parts:
Background
Timetable
Scope
At this early stage I would welcome your views on the possible scope of the Allocations Plan as set
down in the attached note. I have attached a short questionnaire for you to complete and return by
Friday September 2nd 2011.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Godley
Development Manager (Planning Strategy)
Direct Line: 01204 336111
E-mail:
[email protected]
Bolton Council
Appendix 4: The letter of consultation for Allocations Plan scoping
24
Appendix 5
A list of recipients of the scoping letter
Name
Alan Hodson
Andrew
Gouldstone
Christine Pearson
Catherine
Honeywell
David Crausby
D Kearsley
Damien
Holdstock
David Hardman
David Proctor
Dave Sherratt
Lesley Hart
Gemma Grimes
Geoff Critchley
Hazel Roberts
Helen Telfer
Mike Craig
Alice De La Rue
Janet Cuff
Bolton Council
Organisation
The Victorian Society
The Manchester, Bolton
and Bury Canal Society
Jimmy McManus
Jonathan Booth
The RSPB
Judith Nelson
Blackrod Town Council
and Clerk
The Twentieth Century
Society
DPP (on behalf of
HMCS)
Julie Hilling
Barbara Keeley
Kirk Mulhearn
Wigan Council
Entec UK Ltd (on behalf
of National Grid)
First Floor, Thirlmere
House
Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council
United Utilities Property
Services
Bolton Sixth Form
College
BWEA
Bolton Hospital NHS
Trust
GM Chamber of
Commerce
Environment Agency
Open Space Society
Greater Manchester
Police Design for
Security
Fields in Trust ( formerly)
National Playing Fields
Association
The Georgian Group
National Federation of
Gypsy Liasion Groups
Traveller Law Reform
Coalition
Sport England North
West
Greater Manchester Fire
and Rescue Service HQ
The Ramblers
Louise Nurser
Leesa Beckwith
Mark Welsh
Mark Harrison
Margaret M F
Collier
Martyn Walker
Janet Baguley
Paul Allen
Paul Dunn
Peter McAnespie
Philippa Lane
Richard Clowes
Richard Newton
Gerrie Willox
Sue Duncan
Shaun Reynolds
Tony Hothersall
Teresa Hughes
Linda Challender
Diane Clarke
Christine Morris
Yasmin Qureshi
Brian Tetlow
Association Manchester
& High Peak Area
Salford City Council
Electricity Northwest
English Heritage North
West Region
Showmen's Guild of
Great Britain
DCLG
Lancashire County
Council
Bolton Primary Care
Trust
The Coal Authority
Lostock Residents'
Group
Lancashire Wildlife Trust
Natural England
Bury Council
Greater Manchester
Waste Disposal Authority
Chorley Council
GMGU
TFGM
British Waterways
Lancashire CPRE
Campaign to Protect
Rural England
(Lancashire)
University of Bolton
Highways Agency
Red Rose Forest
Greater Manchester
Ecology Unit
Horwich Town Council
Network Rail
Westhoughton Town Hall
Bolton and District Civic
Trust
Appendix 5: A list of recipients of the scoping letter
25
Appendix 6
A schedule of comments on scoping together with the council’s response to them
Organisation/
Company
Full questions:
Organisation/
Company Name
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
In the light of the current
changes to the planning
system and other factors,
does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues
that you would like to see
included?
If, no what additional issues should be covered?
Council response
Greater Manchester
Fire and Rescue
Service
Yes
The Ramblers
Association
Manchester & High
Peak Area
No
Westhoughton
Town Hall
Yes The Town
Council noted the
documents but made no
comments.
English Heritage
North West Region
Noted.
There is mention of strategic routes and significant cycle routes but
we would also like to see mention of significant walking routes.
No evidence has been submitted to
identify significant walking routes so no
changes to the plan are proposed at
this stage.
Noted.
The Allocations Plan will identify sites for development and protection
and it is important that the Council uses information about the historic
environment and heritage assets to inform decision making on both
these matters. When identifying specific sites for development
potential impacts upon the historic environment, heritage assets and
their settings needs to be assessed to help inform and shape
development proposals, including decisions on density. In addition
the allocation plan should examine ways in which the historic
environment and heritage assets can be used to meet Bolton’s
development requirements, through for example the adaptive re-use
of buildings.
The site selection process has
included sustainability appraisal which
has taken into account heritage
matters.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
26
Organisation/
Company
English Heritage
North West Region
English Heritage
North West Region
English Heritage
North West Region
English Heritage
North West Region
English Heritage
North West Region
English Heritage
North West Region
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
The Allocations Plan should show designated heritage assets at an
appropriate scale. The proposals map should show scheduled
monuments, registered parks and gardens and conservation areas.
If plans are included for specific development sites it should also be
possible to show listed buildings and locally important buildings.
A number of local planning authorities are also using the Site
Allocations DPD to identify locally specific Special Character Areas.
These are areas not quite of Conservation Area quality but where
their special distinctiveness requires some extra recognition and
protection. Such areas might include for example, places with low
density housing in larger gardens, areas of semi rural character or
areas of traditional farm buildings. Each character area would be
accompanied by its own set of criteria to achieve higher quality
development. The Greater Manchester Urban Historic Landscape
Characterisation could be used to help inform such work.
The Allocations Plan should consider the need to designate Local
Green Spaces which can include spaces of historic importance.
The allocations plan shows heritage
assets listed in the representation.
Draft SA scoping report - English Heritage suggests that SA/SEAs
are tailored to suit the particular purposes and scale of the
document/plan being assessed. We therefore welcome your
proposed amendment of the Core Strategy SA Framework to ensure
that the SA draws out all the sustainability issues that relate to sites.
Draft SA scoping report - SA objective 10 addresses the historic
environment and it would be very helpful in understanding impact
upon the historic environment if the score for each site was
accompanied by a commentary explaining why the score was given,
i.e. we suggest that the site appraisal process shows the “workings.
Draft SA scoping report - We note that small SA group is to be
formed bringing in experts as required. It is important that the SA
group has the benefit of expert historic environment advice when
undertaking the site appraisals. It is important that the site appraisal
looks at the full range of heritage assets both designated and locally
important and covers their setting. It may also be necessary to look at
heritage assets close to proposed sites which may be affected by the
proposal.
Comments relevant to the SA process
The Greater Manchester UHLC was
used in defining the area policies
within the Core Strategy. These areas
are defined on the allocations plan.
Urban open space over 0.4 ha is
shown on the proposals map.
Comments relevant to the SA process
Comments relevant to the SA process
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
27
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
The Manchester,
Bolton and Bury
Canal Society
Yes
TFGM
No
The Coal Authority Planning and Local
Authority Liaison
Additional issues?
Council Response
Noted.
Bolton Interchange should be added to section 4.
As you will be aware, surface coal resources are present within
Bolton and the area has been subjected to coal mining which will
have left a legacy. By way of illustration, within Bolton there are
approximately 1,460 recorded mine entries.
The Coal Authority has provided Bolton Council with data identifying
areas of coal resource that are capable of extraction using surface
mining methods, in October 2009, and data identifying area of coal
mining legacy, in September 2010.
The Bolton Interchange Trinity
Interchange proposal is fully
recognised in Core Strategy policy
TC4 and no use-specific allocations
are shown within Bolton Town Centre.
Cross reference is made in the
Allocations plan text but no additional
information or policy is required.
The Core Strategy acknowledges the
issues of contamination or land
instability that may result from the
historical mining legacy and policy
CG4 provides the policy basis to
ensure applications fully consider
these issues. Detailed work on
allocations could check for any site
specific considerations raised by Coal
Authority data.
In identifying any site allocations it would therefore be prudent to
include a criterion which assesses coal mining data. In accordance
with PPG14 guidance, this would be a due diligence check to ensure
that potential development sites do not contain any mine entries or
other coal related hazards which would require remediation or
stabilisation prior to development.
However, I would emphasise that former mining activities and related
hazards are certainly not a strict constraint on development; indeed it
would be far preferable for appropriate development to take place in
order to remove these public liabilities on the general tax payer. The
Coal Authority would therefore not wish to suggest that any potential
sites should be excluded from allocation on the grounds of former
mining legacy issues.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
28
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
The Coal Authority Planning and Local
Authority Liaison
Additional issues?
Council Response
In addition, an assessment should be made of the likely impact on
mineral resources, including coal. This will help to ensure that any
potential sterilisation effects are properly considered in line with the
guidance in MPS1 (Planning & Minerals) and MPG3 (Coal Mining
and Colliery Spoil Disposal).
The issue of sterilisation of minerals is
covered generally in Core Strategy
policy P4. More detailed policy and
the identification of mineral
safeguarding areas will be through the
Greater Manchester Joint Minerals
plan.
It is important that where allocations are proposed within areas of
identified surface coal resource that the Allocations Plan identifies
this fact and encourages developers to consider prior extraction of
the coal to avoid this valuable mineral resource being unnecessarily
sterilised, in accordance with MPS1. In areas of shallow mine
workings prior extraction of remnant shallow coal can prove to be a
more economically viable method of site remediation for developers
than grout filling of voids.
Horwich Town
Council
No
Horwich Town
Council
No
For further information on these issues please find attached a copy of
The Coal Authority’s leaflet Planning Policy Objectives (July 2011).
Council feels that the scope, as presented, is in some ways too
vague and in other ways it is too precise. In particular: The strategic
route network Is this road and rail? If rail is included - will it be
electrified? Horwich Town Council requests that these points be
noted.
Council feels that the scope, as presented, is in some ways too
vague and in other ways it is too precise. In particular: Protected
employment areas - will this be all employment i.e. office,
factory, retail and leisure? Horwich Town Council requests that these
points be noted.
Noted. The strategic route network
consists of roads within the borough
that carry the highest volumes of traffic
and provide major connections. A new
policy is proposed P9AP which states
that the council and its partners will
safeguard the Strategic Route Network
along which major traffic flows will be
directed and will support the
development of public transport and
improvements for cyclists in
appropriate locations on this network
Noted. For clarity protected
employment areas cover the borough's
established industrial estates which
provide typical industrial and
commercial employment. They do not
cover retail or leisure uses.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
29
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
The Environment
Agency North West
Region - South
Area
6. Cleaner, Greener Bolton There is no reference to ‘Green
Infrastructure’ within this section. Several policies within the Core
Strategy (e.g. CG1, RA1) refer to Green Infrastructure and this will
need to be considered in further detail as part of any allocations DPD.
The Environment
Agency North West
Region - South
Area
6. Cleaner, Greener Bolton We note there will be reference to the
extent of the flood zones as part of the allocation DPD. We would
recommend that the findings of the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) are also considered, particularly when
considering appropriate uses in flood risk terms (i.e. the vulnerability
of uses). No development should be permitted within areas of
‘functional floodplain’ in accordance with Planning Policy Statement
25.
Draft Sustainability Scoping Report We support reference to the
consideration of appropriate EU Directives.
The overall approach to Green
Infrastructure is set out in the Core
Strategy. The allocations plan
identifies a number of different
allocations for example urban open
space, West Pennine Moors and the
Croal Irwell Valley.
The allocations plan shows revised
flood risk zones and flood risk has
been considered in evaluation of sites
through the sustainability appraisal.
The Environment
Agency North West
Region - South
Area
Noted.
The Environment
Agency North West
Region - South
Area
Draft Sustainability Scoping Report One of the key directives will
be the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC) applies to all surface waters and
Groundwaters. It requires member states to prevent deterioration of
water bodies and to improve or maintain them with the aim to meet
‘good status’ or ‘good ecological potential’.
Noted.
The Environment
Agency North West
Region - South
Area
Draft Sustainability Scoping Report The sustainability appraisal
should consider the impacts of the Allocations DPD using water
quality indicators that are used under the WFD. More information on
this can be found on our website (http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/planning/34383.aspx).
Noted.
We would request the following additional issues be covered within
the Allocations Plan scope: The Highways Agency notes that there
isn’t a linkage to the outputs of the Phase 2 Modelling work and how
this will feed into the infrastructure plan and its role in identifying
measures that will be required in order to mitigate the traffic impact of
The modelling work is not yet
complete, but will inform the published
version of the Allocations Plan. It is
referred to in the Explanatory
Statement.
Highways Agency
No
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
30
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
development. We would request that a reference to the Infrastructure
Plan be made within the Introduction in section 1 bullet point 1 and
expanded further in section 4.
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Summary - The consultation has insufficient details to allow full
assessment of proposals to be made.
Noted. Consultation on the Draft
Allocations Plan will address this.
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Summary - UUW would like to highlight concerns with possible
timescales that may not be in line with OFWAT’s funding process.
The timing and/or delays in the completion of the Allocation Plan
could result in a deficiency in available data to support UUW’s
infrastructure investment bid for 2015 – 2020 and could therefore
impair your future development aspirations.
The council is working separately with
UU to support the 2015-2020
infrastructure investment bid.
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Summary - In considering any application for planning permission,
the LPA and/or the applicant must demonstrate that infrastructure
capacity is available to serve the proposal. If capacity is not available,
the application should not be approved until the infrastructure
deficiencies can be redressed and/or an alternative location is sought
where infrastructure capacity is available and it meets the LPA
development needs.
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: PPS12 - Infrastructure
Not relevant to the Allocations Plan
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Not relevant to the Allocations Plan
The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical,
social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of
development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and
distribution.
This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and
when it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in
parallel influence any strategies and investment plans of the local
authority and other organisations.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
31
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
[Reason: Satisfactory and sustainable development]
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Infrastructure
To preserve the quality for the existing community and to prevent
environmental damage; developments should not be permitted until
infrastructure capacity is available.
Consultation on the Draft Allocations
Plan will help to identify if development
is proposed where there are capacity
issues. Other comments are best
addressed at the planning application
stage.
UUW cannot confirm if capacity is available until the connection
point/s, flows and completion dates are confirmed, therefore the LPA
should work closely with UUW and other utility providers to ensure
funding and infrastructure plans are secured with their Regulators
before granting planning approval; failure may result in the
deterioration of the community's quality of live and/or environmental
damage.
The scale and type of development needs to be defined so the
appropriate infrastructure is in place to ensure growth is sustainable.
UUW has a number of recent examples where infrastructure has
been provided based on identified growth, but not delivered; this has
resulted in major operational issues; the treatment process is under
loaded; it is failing to operate because it cannot reach its operational
capacity.
Additional temporary engineer solutions are in place; this represents
a significant risk to the exiting customers; the environment and UUW;
not forgetting the additional financial burden on UUW’s customers.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
32
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Bolton MBC has a number of capacity issues; any additional
developments in these and/or adjoining areas without firstly ensuring
funding and infrastructure plans are implemented could result in an
increased number and frequency of sewer flooding incidents.
[Reason: Ensure timely delivery of development and infrastructure to
protect the good quality of life and the environment]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
33
Organisation/
Company
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Responding Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment [SHLAA]
These comments are best addressed
at planning application stage
Responding to an individual site identified in a SHLAA will not give a
true reflection on impact on the existing infrastructure or provide a
clear investment plan for the future.
A single plot will not be constructed, a number of plots will and
therefore numerous build scenarios can be created from the list of
sites identified in a SHLAA. What if: Plots A, B, C and Z are
constructed Or Plots B; C; D; Y and Z are constructed.
UUW cannot provided a true impact assessment on the development
plots identified in your SHLAA, UUW would preferred to met a
member of your team to discuss this in further detail.
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
[Reason: To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take
place until proper provision has been made for their disposal and to
provide satisfactory/sustainable development]
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Water Resources Planning
Our Water Resources Management Plan published in 2009, sets out
our strategy for water resources management for the next twenty-five
years and highlights areas where there is likely to be a supply deficit
and what activities will be put in place to mitigate any shortfall in
supply. The plan can be accessed here:
http://www.unitedutilities.com/WaterResourcesPlan.aspx.
Consultation on the Draft Allocations
Plan will help to identify if development
is proposed where there are supply
issues. Other comments are best
addressed at the planning application
stage.
We would encourage all developers and planners to contact UUW at
the earliest opportunity to enable identification of points of connection
with least cost to the developer.
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
34
Organisation/
Company
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Increased Water Capacity
These comments are best addressed
at planning application stage
The developer is required to pay for their increased capacity (up to
the point of a treatment works) and they are only allowed to connect
where and when permitted.
Planners and Developer should obtain local capacity information from
the UUW Area Teams\Connections who would be able to identify
areas where there is current capacity for development; this would be
on a case by case basis and developers are required to pay a fee for
this service (a pre development enquiry).
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: General Water Efficiency Guidance
These comments are best addressed
at planning application stage
United Utilities encourages the use of water efficient designs and
development wherever this is possible. There are a number of
actions developers can undertake to ensure that their developments
are water efficient. The most up to date advice for water efficiency
and water efficiency products can be found at Waterwise who have
recently published a best practise guide on water efficiency for new
developments. We would encourage utilisation of the following water
efficiency activities:
-Installing of the latest water efficient products, such as a 4.5l flush
toilet instead of the 6l type.
-Minimise run lengths of hot and cold water pipes from storage to
tap/shower areas. This minimises the amount of waste during the
time the water goes from cold to hot.
-Utilising drought resistant varieties of trees, plants and grasses when
landscaping.
-Install water efficient appliances such as dishwashers, washing
machines.
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
35
Organisation/
Company
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Carbon impact
These issues are addressed in the
Core Strategy
LPA and developers should consider to the total carbon impact of
future developments; not only the footprint of the development but
also the carbon impact for additional infrastructure assets; their
associated treatment processes and their future maintenance and
operation requirements. To meet future reduction targets LPA and
Developers should considered the wider carbon impact when
determining the location of future developments.
[Reason: Satisfactory and sustainable development]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
36
Organisation/
Company
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in the
Allocations Plan: Surface Water
These issues are addressed in the
Core Strategy
The treatment and processing of surface water [storm water; rainwater] is a
not a sustainable solution; the sites’ current natural discharge solution should
be continued and/or mimicked; if the existing surface water does not have an
existing natural solution, UUW questions the development of a flooded site.
Surfacewater should be managed at source and not transferred; if not this
only transfers the issue to another location; generally to a single pinch point,
generating further problems in that location.
Developments must drain on a separate sewerage system, with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewerage network.
Every option should be investigate before discharging surface water into a
public sewerage network.
Connecting surface water to the public sewerage network is not a
sustainable solution and LPA should discourage this practice.
The priority options for the management of surface water discharges are:
-Continue and/or mimic the site’s current natural discharge process
-Store for later use
-Discharge into infiltration systems located in porous sub soils
-Attenuate flows into green engineering solutions such as ponds; swales or
other open water features for gradual release to a watercourse and/or porous
sub soils
-Attenuate by storing in tanks or sealed systems for gradual release to a
watercourse
-Direct discharge to a watercourse
-Direct discharge to a surface water sewer
-Controlled discharge into the combined sewerage network ~ this option is a
last resort when all other options have been discounted.
Development on greenfield sites shall not discharge surface water into the
public combined sewerage network and shall not increase the rate of run-off
into the public surface water network ~ this statement does not replace the
priority options for surface water management above.
On previously developed land, a reduction of at least 30% will be sought,
rising to a minimum of 50% in critical drainage areas ~ this statement does
not replace the priority options for surface water management above
Any discharge to the public sewerage system must be via approved SUDS
and will require an approved discharge rate.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
37
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Consideration should given for green infrastructure, low carbon, soft
engineering SUDS solutions, such as ponds; swales; wet land areas and
detention basins etc.
A discharge to groundwater or watercourse may require the consent of the
Environment Agency.
[Reason: To ensure that the surface water is properly discharged to prevent
flooding or the overloading of the public sewerage network]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
38
Organisation/
Company
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Development adjacent to infrastructure
assets
The future expansion of infrastructure assets to meet the needs of
future development and changes in legalisation could create a
potential conflict with development plans, this may result in £Millions
of customers money being spent in building a new infrastructure
outside the locality; therefore developments adjacent to UUW assets
should be discouraged by LPA
Water and sewerage companies have a legal right of access to their
assets; this can be for their operational and/or maintenance therefore
UUW will not permit the building over and/or near its infrastructure
assets.
By their nature wastewater, processes generate odour levels, which
the public may deem to be unacceptable; in addition, the filter
processes attract flies.
To avoid any conflict historically these facilities have been sited away
from the general population.
To protect the public from these by-products UUW would ask that the
Environmental Health Authority be consulted in any future
developments adjacent to wastewater infrastructure assets. In most
cases, the distance of 400 metres from the WWTW is used as a
guide, but this can differ due to local topography, climatic conditions,
size and nature of the wastewater infrastructure asset and
development in question.
[Reason: To protect existing infrastructure and maintain service]
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
39
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
Additional issues?
Council Response
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Infill land
These comments are best addressed
at planning application stage
You should be aware that, on occasion, gaps are left between
properties; this is due to the presence of underground utility assets.
UUW will not allow the building over or near to these assets and
development will not be acceptable in these locations.
[Reason: In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and
repair work at all times]
UUW would like to make the following comments to be included in
the Allocations Plan: Climate change adaptation
Supply, Demand &
Asset Protection
Team UU Water
PLC
These issues are addressed in the
Core Strategy.
Planners and Developers should consider that the impacts of climate
change on future development, existing infrastructures and the
environment.
Developments to be designed to reduce the impacts of climatic
change on the development itself, the existing infrastructure and the
environment; with consideration for hotter, drier summers, greater
flood risk and more severe weather events.
To reduce the impacts of climate change on the existing
infrastructure LA Planners should seek a significant reduction in the
discharge from developments.
Paving over front gardens has potential contribution to flood risk and
should be discouraged.
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
[Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained;
prevents flooding and environmental damage]
Additional issues which should be covered are: 2. Healthy Bolton Sites for new Health Centres
Demand for extra health centres should be clearly identified, based
on pre-determined criteria, objectively assessed. We understand that
take up of new centres has been slow, and many patients would feel
better-served by more flexible and longer opening hours at their local
GP’s surgery. In the present economic climate, the capital and
The council has consulted fully with
Bolton PCT over its future plans and
progress on schemes and funding
requirements are outlined in the
Infrastructure Plan.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
40
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
running costs of the new centres need to be considered when change
is contemplated. The needs of the elderly to access a LOCAL facility
should be addressed.
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 3. Achieving Bolton
AND 5. Safe Bolton – Sites for new schools
If administrative measures for parent parking cannot be implemented
at existing sites without criminalising parents, parking provision needs
to be increased, for ALL staff and parents, particularly at primary
schools. Particularly at primary schools, parking and drop-off
facilities are a regular source of friction. Our experience in Lostock is
that measures so far put in place are not working, and the principal
(unprincipled) response is to deploy a vehicle to film recalcitrant
parents, who often have little option but to use a car. The current
parking is totally absorbed by teachers, plus some teaching
assistants.
Parking standards are set out in the
Core Strategy, but they only relate to
new development, not to existing
buildings.
It may be that administrative measures for parent parking can be put
in place, and that more could be done in using, e.g. local pub car
parks, combined with a walking bus. Clearly the issue is active in
other areas, e.g. Hardy Mill School.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
41
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 4. Prosperous
Bolton – Road and Rail links with Manchester are crucial to
prosperity, and the increasing profile of West Bolton as a dormitory
suburb within the travel to work area of the City of Manchester.
The council does fully engage with
operators, however scope to influence
service provision through the
allocations plan is very limited.
We appreciate that the funding of major transport infrastructure is
largely a national decision, but it is a key issue for the delivery of
Prosperous Bolton. We would like to see a robust engagement on
ALL RAIL SERVICES for Bolton. Road and Rail links with
Manchester, and on to London, are crucial to prosperity, and to the
increasing profile of West Bolton as a dormitory suburb within the
travel to work area of the City of Manchester.
We feel that any plan which addresses the future prosperity of Bolton
has to include what should be done to engage with these wider
issues. Transport infrastructure for Bolton, both road and rail, has
been underfunded both in absolute terms, and relative to the South
East (see the Select Committee on Transport’s assessment). The
willingness of workers engage with greener modes of transport is
evidenced by the saturation of rail services for commuters, regularly
promised second-hand cast off carriages from Thameslink.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
42
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 4. Prosperous
Bolton - a. Central Bolton
The Bolton Interchange Trinity
Interchange proposal is fully
recognised in Core Strategy policy
TC4.
The bulk of those wishing to travel beyond Bolton will use a car either
for the whole journey, or to get them as far as a railway station with a
car park. Other aspiring localities have a busy station CAR PARK;
they have no need of a Bus/Rail interchange. For Bolton to sign up
for an interchange with no car parking, seems in itself a recognition
that Bolton is not ‘prosperous’, but is living in the past, when workers
went to the mill on foot or by bus.
LRG replied as above to the consultation on the interchange, and
stated that the planned cost is so huge that it will blight future
transport funding applications for Bolton.
Today’s Bolton News identifies the impact of the removal of nearby
car parking on the elderly, but car driving, parishioners of St Patrick’s
Church, next to which the interchange is planned.
We now find that there are moves afoot to sideline Bolton itself as a
route to London, with Wigan preferred.
The proposed Interchange seems to be heading for ‘Water Place’
status as a white elephant for Bolton.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
43
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 4. Prosperous
Bolton - b. Lostock Station
Lostock residents are dismayed and angry that the opening of the
enlarged car park at Lostock Station (achieved with considerable time
and effort from LRG) coincided with a reduction in service for that
station in the December 08 timetable. We seem to have had five
explanations for this from four bodies involved, but no restoration of
the service. In fact, since then, Lostock Station has been further
sidelined with even fewer services.
The allocations plan has little scope to
influence decisions of transport
operators in terms of train timetables.
In addition, the intention, had the Congestion Charge been accepted,
to create a platform at Lostock for the Wigan/Southport line by 2013,
has of course been lost.
We believe that, given the level of congestion on the M61 at peak
times (which are increasing in duration) the need for many more
trains to stop at Lostock should be recognised in any consideration of
how to achieve or retain prosperity for Bolton.
Lostock Residents'
Group
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 4. Prosperous
Bolton - c. M61
We believe that, given the level of congestion on the M61 at peak
times (which are increasing in duration) the need for many more
trains to stop at Lostock should be recognised in any consideration of
how to achieve or retain prosperity for Bolton.
Additional issues which should be covered are: 4. Prosperous
Bolton - d. Chorley New Road
A victim of higher density development than the route will bear.
Further development feeding into this route needs an improvement of
the road.
The Allocations Plan cannot influence
the stopping patterns of train services
Transport modelling will address any
capacity issues on the capacity of
Chorley New Road, and the results will
be available to inform the published
version of the Core Strategy.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
44
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 6. Cleaner, Greener
Bolton – a.Heritage assets, their identification, recording and
protection
The Core Strategy sets out in policy
CG3 how heritage will be taken into
account in planning decisions. Any
decisions around the setting up of a
local list are outside the scope of the
allocations plan.
Bolton is in danger of undervaluing its heritage assets; once they are
gone, they are gone.
It seems that a commercial success can (just) be made of Fred
Dibnah’s former home, yet the Council cannot manage to keep Hall
i’th Wood, a listed building, open to the public on a regular basis.
Many acknowledged heritage assets do not reach the high standards
needed to achieve listed status or be recognised by English Heritage.
That is why a ‘local list’ is maintained by many local authorities. In
Greater Manchester, these assets are recorded at Manchester
University by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit (GMAU). It
is thus disingenuous to for Case Officer’s reports to repeat the
mantra, ‘Bolton does not operate a local list’. Heritage assets can be
of high local significance, yet not reach the national standard for
recognition.
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
We at LRG feel that the Council should take a more positive attitude
to local heritage, which enhances the attractiveness of a locality, and
serves to preserve Bolton’s distinctiveness in an age of mass
similarities. Not only does this contribute to a Cleaner, Greener
Bolton; it actually has an economic spin-off in retaining the character
of the town, to the benefit of Prosperous Bolton.
Additional issues which should be covered are: 6. Cleaner, Greener
Bolton – b.ADDITIONAL conservation areas
We are unsure whether ‘the extent of conservation areas’ covers this.
If not, we feel that more resources need to be allocated to
designation of conservation areas. Often the assets within them are
irreplaceable, due to the cost or lack of skilled tradesmen to replicate
them. The points on retention and value above apply.
The designation of new conservation
areas or modification of existing ones
is outside the scope of the allocations
plan.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
45
Organisation/
Company
Does the Allocations Plan
scope cover all the issues?
Additional issues?
Council Response
Lostock Residents'
Group
No
Additional issues which should be covered are: 6. Cleaner, Greener
Bolton – c.Green Belt enforcement policies which are enforced.
Enforcement issues are not a matter
for the allocations plan.
There is little point in attaching conditions to development of, e.g.,
nurseries and sports changing facilities given exceptional permission
to build within the Green Belt, if the conditions are then breached
without any adverse consequence. The Council’s website makes
much capital of the large areas of Green Belt within the Borough. It
behoves it to protect this fully. This is a Bolton-wide issue, as
evidenced by concern within the Civic trust in areas other than West
Bolton.
Appendix 6: Comments on scoping + council’s responses
Bolton Council
46
Appendix 7
A summary of the methods of consultation on the Draft Plan
Draft Allocations Plan Consultation: What we did
Date
Nov 2011 to Jan 2012
Press
There was a press release and a Bolton Scene article
Documents available:
Website – response forms were available on line, comments could be made on line
via Accolaid
Town Hall
All libraries
Area Offices
Members
Invited to comment on draft plan before it was approved by the Executive Member for consultation.
Consulted after the draft plan was approved
Area Forum
Prepared a briefing for each Area Forum, including a listing of all potential housing sites. This
included information on the planning process, the main features in the Area Forum area and how
to respond.
Attended drop in sessions at 3 Area Forums – Two Towns, Breightmet and Harper Green
Made presentations at 3 Area Forums – Westhoughton, Little Lever and Hulton
Paper copies of the response forms were given out at each Area Forum meeting
Town Councils
Attended town council meetings and made presentations at Horwich and Blackrod
Others
Wrote directly to a wide range of organisations, residents groups and individuals.
Bolton Council
Appendix 7: A summary of the methods of consultation on the Draft Plan
47
Appendix 8
Date:
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
The letter of consultation on the Draft Plan
22nd November 2011
PTP/SG/UG27
Development and Regeneration
3rd floor,
Bolton Town Hall
Bolton BL1 1RU
Tel:
Fax:
01204 333333
01204 336399
www.bolton.gov.uk
Dear [Sir or Madam],
Bolton’s Allocations Plan – Draft for consultation
Bolton Council adopted its Core Strategy in March 2011. It is currently consulting on its Draft
Allocations Plan, which will show how the Core Strategy will be implemented on a Proposals Map
for the Borough. The Plan also contains a limited number of policies to be used in conjunction with
the Map. When adopted it will replace the few residual policies still in force from the current
Unitary Development Plan (2005) and its Proposals Map. The Allocations Plan and the Core
Strategy will then provide the main statutory planning framework for Bolton.
While this Draft is an early stage of preparing the Allocations Plan the council has prepared a full
version of both the Proposals Map and the written statement. The Map shows which sites might
be suitable for development over the next 15 years, including locations for new houses and new
employment. It also shows which areas of land should be protected from development, for
example because they are in the Green Belt, or are used for recreational purposes. This is an
early informal stage in the preparation of the Plan, and the council wishes to hear everybody’s
views so that there is broad agreement when it comes to the later, more formal, stages of plan
preparation.
The Draft Allocations Plan can be found on the Bolton Council website at
http://www.bolton.gov.uk/allocationsplan. Comments can be made online from this web page or
via the map. Alternatively a comments form can also be downloaded, completed and returned
either by post or email. The web page also contains supporting information including a
Sustainability Appraisal and the council’s response to previous informal consultation.
Paper copies of the Allocations Plan are available for inspection at Bolton Town Hall, the
Borough’s libraries and area offices, together with copies of the comments form.
The council encourages online consultation responses, but they can also be emailed to
[email protected], or sent by post or delivered to Planning Strategy, 3rd Floor, Bolton
Town Hall, Bolton. BL1 1RU.
Bolton Council
Appendix 8 The letter of consultation on the Draft Plan
48
Once the present consultation period has finished, the Council will prepare the Allocations Plan for
publication, when there will be an opportunity for further formal representations. This stage is
timetabled for July 2012. From then, the timetable will be as follows;
Submission to the Secretary of State Public examination Adoption -
Autumn 2012
Winter 2013
Summer 2013
You need to return any comments forms by Friday, 27th January 2012. Please be aware that
these comments cannot be treated as confidential, and in due course your comments will be
included in a document that will be on the council’s website.
The council has sent you this letter because it considers you have an interest in the Allocations
Plan, or because you have had some previous involvement in the preparation of the Core Strategy.
If you no longer wish to receive letters about the council’s planning policies, please let me know.
Please note that we have contacted a wide range of people and organisations either by email or
letter to take part in this consultation exercise. However to avoid duplication and minimise postage
costs correspondence has been limited to one contact per organisation. If applicable to you I
would be grateful if you would circulate information about the draft Allocations Plan to those who
may be interested within your organisation or group. The same approach has been taken to those
acting on behalf of others, so if you are an agent please notify your client/s as they may not have
been contacted separately.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Godley
Development Manager (Planning Strategy)
Direct Line: 01204 336111
Direct Fax: 01204 336399
E-mail:
[email protected]
Bolton Council
Appendix 8 The letter of consultation on the Draft Plan
49
Appendix 9
9a:
A list of organisations & people to whom the Draft Plan consultation letter was sent
Organisations, and people associated with – or on behalf of – organisations or others
Organisation
Name
Organisation
22 Dickenson Court
3 Ltd
A S Chapman Associates
A. B. Design Services
Acorus Rural Property
Services
Adactus Housing Group
Ltd
Adult services
AEW Architects &
Designers Ltd.
Affinity Sutton
Barbara Jackson
Ashfords LLP (pp Mrs
Yates)
Ashrafia Mosque
Asian Elders initiative
Asian Women Elders
exercise group
Asian/Afro Carribean
Advisory Centre
Ask/Bluemantle C/o
Drivers Jonas
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Bridge Ward
Astley Park Estate
Atisreal Limited
Atisreal Limited
Afghan Community Group
African Children
Protection
African Children
Protection
African Community
Association of Bolton
African Community Group
Age Concern
Age Concern
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
(Agent)
Airport Operators
Al - Falah Mosque
Alyn Nicholls &
Associates
Amphibian & Reptile
Conservation Trust
(ARC)
Amphibian & Reptile
Group of South
Lancashire (ARGSL)
Ancient Monuments
Society
Apna Women's Group
Armstrong Environmental
Services Ltd
Arriva
Arriva
Arriva NW
Arriva NW
Artech Design
Arts development
Bolton Council
Mr A Chapman
Mr A Brown
Mr Anthony Atkinson
Ms Morna Maines
Nick Maher
Sarah Paton
Dr Abdul Hakeem
Nazeer
Jimmy Mugisha
Deo Ntangano
Nat Biney
Gabriel Bayor
Gareth Evans
Mr G Aldridge
Mr I Birchall
Mr S Bolton
Mr N Butterworth
Mr Patrick J. Clinton
Mr J Copeland
Mr D I Groves
A J Lang
Mr R Potter
Mr S Saund
Mr S Taylor
Mr K White
Mr P Whiteley
Mr F Whittaker
Mr A Whittam
Mr Asif Patel
Mr A Nicholls
Ms Dorothy Wright
Mr David Orchard
Farhat Shaheen
Mr Joe Major
Mr Andrew Jarvis
Ben Jarvis
Henry Hughes
M Phillips
Lory Povah
Atisreal Limited
Atisreal Limited
Atkins Design
Environment &
Engineering
B & D Croft
B&E Boys Ltd
B.A.D.G.E
Bangladesh Association
Bangladesh Welfare
Association
Barratt Chester
Barton Willmore
BATRA
BCOM
BCOM
Beara Properties Ltd.
Bellway Homes Ltd
Bhailock Fielding
Solicitors
Bidwells
Birtenshaw
Blackrod Town Council &
Clerk
Bloor Homes
Bluemantle Ltd
BNP Paribas
BNP Paribas Real Estate
(pp BAE Systems)
BNP Paribas Real Estate
(pp Harworth Estates)
Bollton NHS
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
Bolton Active Disability
Group for Everyone
Bolton & Distirct Victim
Support
Bolton & District Citizens
Advice Bureau
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
Bolton at Home
Name
Mr Tony Mason
Mr Gulam Hussain
Mr Ish Patel
Mr Anis Atcha
Mr Jamil Ahmed
Mr Graham Stock
Cllr Hilary Fairclough
Cllr John Walsh OBE
Cllr Paul Wild
Mr Terry Cramant
Mr Paul Forshaw
Mr John Dunshea
Ms Sacha A.E.
Ferreira
Mr Alex Willis
Ruth Bronley
Mr Sean Flynn
Mr John Boys
Sally Cooper
Mr A Wadua
Mr Shah
Mr Chris Garner
Mr Dan Mitchell
Michelle Jackson
Mr Asif Patel
Inayat
Mr Eddie Fleming
Mr Simon Artiss
Mr Ayub Bhailock
Mr Leon Armstrong
David Reid
Ms Christine
Pearson
Mr D Jesph
J. S. Caldwell
Mr Justin Cove
Mr Paul Forshaw
Mr Paul Forshaw
Garrie Prosser
Mr Richard Shirres
Ms Elined Jones
Heather Radcliffe
Barry Lyon
Mr Brian Tetlow
Kemi Abidogun
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
50
Organisation
Name
Organisation
Bolton at Home
Bolton at Home
Bolton Bangladesh
Association Community
Neighbourhood
Bolton Barbodhan Society
Ms Gwen Crawford
Mr Mark Turnbull
Bolton Voice of African
Unity
Bolton Volunteer Centre
Bolton West Indian
Association
Bolton Wildlife Advisory
Group (WAG) C/o
University of Bolton
Bolton YMCA
Bovis Homes Limited
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw Ward
Bradshaw, Gas & Hope
Breightmet Outreach
Scheme
Breightmet Ward
Breightmet Ward
Breightmet Ward
Bridgewater Meeting
Room Trust
British Geological Survey
British Marine Federation
British
Telecommunications PLC
British Waterways
The British Wind Energy
Association
Broadway Malyan
Bolton Bury Oldham
Bolton College
Bolton Community
College
Bolton Community Homes
Bolton Community
Network
Bolton Community
Transport & Furniture
Services
Bolton Council
Bolton Council of
Mosques
Bolton Council, Strategic
Housing
Bolton Distict Councill for
Voluntary Service
Bolton Dutch Somali
Association
Bolton Emery Partnership
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Bolton Hindu Forum
Bolton Hindu Forum
Bolton Hospital NHS Trust
Bolton Hospitals NHS
Trust
Bolton Interfaith Council
Bolton Interfaith Council
Bolton Interfaith Council
Bolton Jehovah's
Witnesses
Bolton Job Centre
Bolton Lads & Girls Club
Bolton Magistrates' Court
The Bolton News
Bolton NHS
Bolton NHS
Bolton Parish Church
Bolton PCT
Bolton Primary Care Trust
Bolton Public Health
Bolton Racial Equality
Council
(Bolton Resident, member
of cutacre committee)
Bolton Shopmobility
Bolton Sixth Form College
Bolton Sixth Form College
Bolton Skills Board
Bolton Strategic
Economic Partnership
Bolton Unemployed
Workers Advice Centre
Bolton Council
Aklus Miah
Mr AS Y Patel
Ms Michelle
Geoghegan
Mr Ian Fitzgerald
Liz Foster
Mr Dominic Conway
Sarah Lever
Ms Diane Sandiford
Mr Andy Grundy
Yunus Bobat
Faruk Kala
Ms karen Minnitt
Bashir Ahmed
Denise Emery
Elizabeth Shepherd
Priti Merai
Jay Patel
Mr Geoff Critchley
Tony McNeile
Chan Parmar
Chan Parmer
Mr Steven Connell
Barbara Hunt
Irene Chambers
Andrew Highem
Steve Hughes
Debra Malone
Lesley Jones
Rev. Matthew
Thompson
Shabir Abdul
Mr Mark Welsh
Ms Zahida Hussain
Mr John Booth
Mr Ray Bates
Bob Hindle
Ms Lesley Hart
Michael Kane
Andy Walker
Ms Denise Lonsdale
Bromley Cross Ward
Bromley Cross Ward
Bromley Cross Ward
Bryant Homes North West
Building Design
Partnership (Manchester)
Building Design Services
Business Enterprises Ltd
BWCT
BWEA
BWFC
CA Planning Town
Planners + Environmental
Consultants
CA Planning Town
Planners + Environmental
Consultants
Campaign Land Limited
Campaign Land Ltd
Campaign to Protect
Rural England
(Lancashire)
Carribbean Original
Group
Carribean Elders
Association
Carter Jonas
Carter Jonas LLP (pp the
Wilton Estate)
CB Richard Ellis
CB Richard Ellis Ltd
CBRE
Name
Mr Otis Johnson
Peter Sloan
Mrs Lola Harwood
Ms Ann Kolodziejski
Philippa Martin
Mr David Miller
Cllr Diana Brierley
Cllr Paul Brierley
Cllr Walter Hall
Cllr John Byrne
Cllr Lynda Byrne
Cllr Arthur Norris
Mr Hugh Wilson
Mr Richard Newton
Ms Katie Adderley
Ruth White
Cllr Norman
Critchley
Cllr David Wells
Greenhalgh
Cllr Alan Wilkinson
Mr Phil Mussell
Mr John Doyle
Mr J.P. Donelon
Ian Laithwaite
Ms Gemma Grimes
Philip Mason
Alban Cassidy
Mr Guy Evans
Mr Paul. T. Percival
Mr Carl Morris
Mr Gerrie Willox
Mrs Lewis
Daphne Powell
Mr John Goodwin
Mr Paul Leeming
Mr Laurie Lane
Sarah Cunliffe
Ms Laurie Lane
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
51
Organisation
Centre for Ecology &
Hydrology
Charles Topham & Co
Chelford Homes
Chris Thomas Ltd
Church Leaders' Forum
The Church of England
Civil Aviation Authority
Cliff Walsingham &
Company
The Coal Authority
The Coal Authority Planning & Local
Authority Liaison
Colliers CRE
Colliers CRE
Colliers CRE (pp Bilsdale
Properties)
Colliers International
Commission for
Architecture & the Built
Environment
Commission for
Architecture & the Built
Environment
Commission for New
Towns & English
Partnerships
Communities & Local
Government
Community & voluntary
sector
Community relations
Congolese Sunday Group
Contour Homes Ltd
Contour Housing
The Co-operative Estates
The Corner House
Corporate Propoerty
Services
Council for British
Archaeology
Country land & Business
Association
Countryside Properties
(Northern) Ltd
County Bird Recorder,
Greater Manchester
Crompton Ward
Crompton Ward
Crompton Ward
Croston Conservatories
Crown Estate Office
Cushman & Wakefield
D G & C Lonergan
Partners
D. M. Somerville
Daly International
Daubhill Muslim Society
Bolton Council
Name
Mr Robert Newman
Ms Caroline
Crossley
Mr Chris Thomas
Phillip Brookes
Rt Rev. Chris
Edmondson
Christine Roberts
Mr Mark Harrison
Mr Mark Harrison
Mr Adam Pyrke
Nicholas Finney
Mr Graham Connell
Ms Wendy Sockett
Sarah Burgess
Mr Bernard
Benchella
Shahla Holgeth
Rabina Majid
Pastor Hubert N.
Kayonda
Mr Anjam Shahzad
John Burt
Annette Elliott
Mr Mike Dracup
Carole Barrowclough
Organisation
Name
Davies Harrison
DCA Ltd
DCLG
De Pol Associates Ltd
Planning & Development
Consultants
De Pol Associates Ltd
Planning & Development
Consultants
Defence Estate
Organisation (Ministry of
Defence)
DEFRA
Denovo Design Ltd.
Department for
Constitutional Affairs
Department for Culture,
Media & Sport
Department for Education
& Skills (through GONW)
Department for
Environment, Food &
Rural Affairs (through
GONW)
Department for Transport
(through GONW)
Department of Trade &
Industry (through GONW)
Design-a-Loft
Diocesan Board of
Finance
Disabilty Rights
Commission
Disabled Persons
Transport Advisory
Committee
DNS Stuart Planning &
Design
DNS Stuart Planning &
Design
Dorbcrest Homes Ltd
Dowd Town Planning.
Chartered Town Planners
DPDS Consulting Group
Mr Andrew Lynn
DPP (pp HMCS)
Ms Helen Lancaster
Ms Jane Aspinall
Mrs J Smith
Cllr Sufrana BashirIsmail
Cllr Hanif Darvesh
Cllr Guy Harkin
Mr Simon Broster
Dr D. M. Somerville
Mr Iain Taylor
Mr Yusuf Mangera
DPP pp Tesco Stores Ltd
Drivers Jonas
Drivers Jonas
Drivers Jonas Deloitte
DTZ
DTZ (pp Harworth Estates
(UK Coal))
Dunlop Haywards
Planning
Durose & Gourlay Ltd.
EC Harris LLP
Edmund Kirby
Electricity Northwest
Elite Homes (North) Ltd
The Emerson Group
Emerson Group
Mr Marco De Pol
Mr Paul Walton
Mr Philip Baldwin
Ms H Sweeney
Rt. Hon. Philip
Hammond MP
Mr Dan Drayton
Mr Ian Stuart
Kierstan Boylan
Louise Dowd
Diane Bowyer
Ms Catherine
Honeywell
Ms Hannah Rogers
Mr Graham Stock
Lisa Roberts
Carol Robinson
Mr Hamish
Robertshaw
Mr Hamish
Robertshaw
Mr Mark
Wolstenholme
Mr John Mackenzie
Mr Jonathan Booth
Mr J Chapman
Mr Graham Bee
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
52
Organisation
The Emerson Group
(OBO Orbit Investments
(Northern Ltd))
The Emerson Group
(OBO P.E. Jones
(Contractors) Ltd)
Emery Planning
Partnership
Emery Planning
Partnership
English Heritage North West
Region
Entec UK Ltd (pp National
Grid)
Envirolink Northwest
Environment Agency
Equality & Human Rights
Commission
Fairclough Homes
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Faith Leaders Forum
Farnworth Ward
Farnworth Ward
Farnworth Ward
Fields in Trust ( formerly)
National Playing Fields
Association
First Floor, Thirlmere
House
First Group
First Group
First Group
First Group
First Group
Fish Associates Ltd.
Floorcare Suppliers
Limited
Forestry Commission
The Forestry Commission
Forum for Sport (Bolton)
Foxx Ltd.
Frank Whittaker
Freight Transport
Association
G. D. Kelly RIBA MRICS
The Gateway Sudanese
Community Association Christian
GBWD Partnership
The Georgian Group
Gerald Eve
GL Hearn
GL Hearn
GL Hearn
Bolton Council
Name
Mr Graham Bee
Mr Graham Bee
Caroline Taylor
Mr Rawdon
Gascoigne
Ms Judith Nelson
Mr Damien
Holdstock
Ms Denise Oliver
Ms Helen Telfer
Jane Cicchetti
Dr Kamran Khan
Fr Michael Cooke
Mr Ganshyam Patel
Hema Chevli
Rev. Philip Brooks
Rev. Paul Martin
Vinu Patel
Cllr Jean Gillies
Cllr James Lord
Cllr Anthony Noel
Spencer
Mr David Hardman
Dave Leonard
Phil Bainbridge
John Beckett
Tony Kennedy
Ged Ward
Mr Roger Walton
Mr K K Jones
Susan Woodham
Mr Frank Whittaker
Organisation
GL Hearn (pp Persimmon
Homes / Harcourt
Developments)
GM Chamber of
Commerce
GMGU
GMP
GMP
GMP
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GMPTE
GONW
Good & Tillotson
Gough Planning Services
Graham Ball (pp Robert
Partington)
Graham Ball (pp Thomas
Pendlebury)
Great Lever ward
Great Lever ward
Great Lever ward
Great Places Housing
Group
Great Places Housing
Group
Greater Manchester
Ecology Unit
Greater Manchester Fire
& Rescue Service HQ
Greater Manchester
Police Architectural
Liaison
Greater Manchester
Police Bolton Divisional
Headquarters
Greater Manchester
Police Design for Security
Greater Manchester
Waste Disposal Authority
Greenhalgh & Williams
Partnership
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association
Gujrati Art Group UK
GVA Grimley
Mr G. D. Kelly
GVA Grimley LLP
Peter Lemi
The Gypsy Council
Gypsy Liason Team
Haigh Parish Council
Halliwell ward
Halliwell ward
Halliwell ward
Harlor Homes
Harper Green ward
Harper Green ward
Harper Green ward
Sophie Taylor
Mr Steve Edgeller
Mr Mike Baker
Mr Malcolm
Armstrong
Name
Mr Shaun Taylor
Mr Anoop Seera
Ms Philippa Lane
Stephen Lee
Julia Wharmby
Carol Martin
Mr Richard Clowes
Sam Tysoe
Keith Howcroft
David Partington
Rita Quinn
Mr Paul Byrne
Mrs Judy Gough
Mr Graham Ball
Mr Graham Ball
Cllr Mohammed
Ayub
Cllr Mohammed
Iqbal
Cllr Madeline Murray
Mr Peter Bojar
Guy Cresswell
Ms Teresa Hughes
Mr Michael Hodge
Ch Supt David Lea
Mr Mike Craig
Mr Paul Dunn
Ms Nichola Steele
Mr Haroon Patel
Chris Goddard
Mr Andrew
Thompson
Carolyn Strode
Mrs K Pilkington
Cllr Cliff Morris
Cllr Linda Thomas
Cllr Akhtar Zaman
Janice Harrison
Cllr Margaret Clare
Cllr Mike Francis
Cllr Champak Mistry
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
53
Organisation
Harron Homes (Yorkshire)
Ltd
Harrow Estates plc
Harry Jackson Surveyors
Ltd.
Harworth Estates
(Division of UK Coal PLC)
HCA
Health & Safety Executive
Heaton & Lostock ward
Heaton & Lostock ward
Heaton & Lostock ward
Heaton Planning Ltd
Higham & Co.
Highways Agency
Highways Agency
Hindley Designs Ltd.
Hollins Strategic Land
Hollissvincent Planning &
Development Consultants
The Home Office
Homes & Communities
Agency
Horwich & Blackrod ward
Horwich & Blackrod ward
Horwich & Blackrod ward
Horwich congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses
pp Horwich Golf Club
Horwich Heritage
Horwich North East ward
Horwich North East ward
Horwich North East ward
Horwich Town Council
Horwich Vision Limited
(HVL) C/o How Planning
LLP
Hourigan Connolly
House Builders
Federation
Housing Corporation
Housing Federation North
HOW Commercial
Planning Advisers
HOW Planning (pp Alpha
Investments)
HOW Planning (pp
Horwich Vision)
HOW Planning LLP
How Planning LLP
Hulton ward
Hulton ward
Hulton ward
Hurstwood Group
Hurstwood Group of
Companies
Ian Baseley Associates
(in association with
Horwich Heritage)
(Inclusion & Partnership)
Indigo Planning Ltd
Bolton Council
Name
Mr Roy Jennings
Mr Tim Booth
Mr Stuart Ashton
Diane Goodwin
Cllr Robert Allen
Cllr F. Alan Rushton
Cllr Colin Shaw
Mr Jonathan Wall
Mr Marcus Richman
Mr Sion Owen-Ellis
Mr Shaun Reynolds
Mr S Hindley
Mr Mark Cooper
Mr Mike Holliss
Organisation
Name
Indigo Planning Ltd
Institue of Advanced
Motorists
Irwell Valley Housing
Association
Irwell Valley Housing
Association
ITAC Ltd
J Cowpe (Consulting) Ltd.
J E Welsby
J S Bloor Homes
J. Charlton (Bolton) Ltd
James Campbell
Associates Ltd
Jamia Alavia Mosque
JASP Planning (pp River
Street Assets)
JCS Homes
JEH Building Drawing
Services
The Jem
Mr Doug Hann
Mr David Chilton
JMP Consulting
Cllr Pat Barrow
Cllr Lindsey Kell
Cllr Stephen Pickup
Joint Committee of the
National Amenity
Societies
Jones Day
Jones Homes
Jones Lang LaSalle
JWPC (pp the Hulton
Estate)
JWPC Ltd
JWPC Ltd
KBR Building Consultancy
Kearsley ward
Kearsley ward
Kearsley ward
Kenroy Loft Conversions
Keyworker Homes North
West Ltd
King Sturge LLP Building Consultancy
Kingfern Design Ltd.
Kirkwells
Knight Frank LLP
Krishna Temple
Mr M Mealor
Mr F. R. Yardley
Mr Stuart Whittle
Cllr Joyce Kellet
Cllr Kevin McKeon
Cllr Richard Silvester
Mrs Linda
Challender
Mr Gary Halman
Mr Marc Hourigan
Gina Bourne
Mr Connor Vallelly
L.R.A.
Mr Connor Vallelly
Mr Richard
Woodford
Ms Carol Clarke
Cllr Phil Ashcroft
Cllr Andrew Morgan
Cllr Alan Walsh
Mr Neil Waddington
Mr Stephen
Ashworth
Mr Nick Baseley
J. G. Smith
Carol Haydon
Ms Clare Bland
LA21 Transport Working
Group
Ladybridge Residents
Association
Ladybridge Residents
Association
Lambert Smith Hampton
Lambert Smith Hampton
Lambert Smith Hampton
The Lancashire &
Yorkshire Railway Society
Lancashire CPRE
Lancashire Wildlife Trust
Lancaster Building
Consultants Ltd.
Roy Sammons
Mr John Fedden
Neil Baumber
Mr Paul C Armitt
Mr Welsby
Mr Peter Kilshaw
Mrs Anna Charlton
Hafiz M.S Ali
Mr Simon
Pemberton
Mr Steve Jordan
Mr J Hodgson
Mr Jonathan
Parsons
Ms Angela Turner
Mr David Short
Mr Andy Frost
Mr Paul Tunstall
Mr John Willcock
Cllr Derek Burrows
Cllr Liam Irving
Cllr John Rothwell
Mr Eian Bailey
Ms Gayle Taylor
Mr Michael Wellock
Wendy Hyde
Mr G.B Patel
Mr Michael
Greenhalgh
Mr S Murray
John Tudor
Miss Carol
Greenhalgh
Ms Claire Norris
Mr Kevin Gleeson
Mr Martin Nield
Mr Martyn Walker
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
54
Organisation
Name
Organisation
Name
Land Access &
Recreation Association
Mr Tim Stevens
MCP Planning &
Development
Mr Tony McAteer
Langtree Homes
Mr Andrew
Darbyshire
MEP
The Lawn Tennis
Association
Mr Mark Fisher
Learning & Skills Council
Leith Planning
Lesbian & Gay
Foundation
Levvel Ltd
Little Lever & Darcy Lever
ward
Little Lever & Darcy Lever
ward
Little Lever & Darcy Lever
ward
Little Lever School (Email)
LMP Architects
Longden & Cook (pp the
Diocese of Manchester)
Lostock & Chew Moor
Conservation Group
Lostock Residents' Group
Lostock Residents' Group
Loud & Proud Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual &
Transgender Youth
Madina Mosque
Makki Mosque
Manchester Airport
Manchester City Council
Manchester City Council
Manchester Dioscesan
Board of Finance
Manchester Methodist
Housing Association
Manchester Methodist
Housing Association
The Manchester, Bolton &
Bury Canal Society
The Manchester, Bolton &
Bury Canal Society
Manor Kingdom (Central)
Ltd
Masjid E-Noor-Ul-Islam
Matthews &
Son,Chartered Surveyors
Matthews & Goodman
MAZE Planning Solutions
McCarthy & Stone
Retirement Lifestyles Ltd.
/ The Planning Bureau
McDermott Developments
Ltd
McDyre @ Co.
McInerney Homes
McInerney Homes
Bolton Council
Mr John
Korzeniewski
Shan Dassainake
Mr Richard Bailey
Cllr Anthony Connell
Cllr Maureen Connell
Cllr Mary Woodward
Little Lever School
(E-mail)
Mr James Lawson
Mr Peter Townley
Mrs Mary Berry
Mr Roy Walmsley
Dr Margaret M F
Collier
Mr Sabir Khan
Mr Ismail Adam
Mr Andrew Murray
Roger Hough
Gloria Ighodaro
Mr Peter Bojar
Mr Matthew Harrison
Mr John Fletcher
Mr Alan Hodson
Mr Greg Mulligan
Mr Sabir Adam
Mr Simon Treacy
Mr Steve Buckely
Mr Andrew Watt
Mr Matthew Shellum
Mr Andrew
Darbyshire
Mr Bejamin Charles
McDyre
Mr Andrew Garnett
Mr Nick Roberts
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
MEP
The Methodist Church
Miller Homes Limited
Miller Homes Limited Yorkshire
MJM Design Services
Mobile Operators
Association
Morris Homes Ltd
Morrison's Supermarkets
Plc C/o Peacock & Smith
Mosaic Town Planning
Mosaic Town Planning
(OBO Persimmon
Homes/Harcourt
Developments
MP
MP
MP
MP
Mr Partington
N Power Renewables
Nathaniel Lichfield &
Partners
National Farmers Union
North West Region
National Federation of
Gypsy Liasion Groups
The National Trust
Natural England
Neil Pike Architecture
Limited
Network Rail
Network Rail (Minerals &
Waste Team)
New Bolton Somali
Community Association
New Earth Solutions
Limited
New Testament Church of
God
Nightingale & Co
Solicitors
NJL Consulting Ltd
Nolan Redshaw Ltd
North British Housing Places for People
North Turton Parish
Council
North West Age UK
Rt. Hon. Sir Robert
Atkins
Mr Chris Davies
Ms Jacqueline
Foster
Mr Nick Griffin
Mr Sajjad Karim
Mrs Arlene McCarthy
Mr Paul Nuttall
Mr Brian Simpson
Rev. David King
Sophia Fleming
Mr Tim Williams
Mr M Minshall
Ms Carolyn Wilson
Mr Andrew
Thompson
Mr Leon Armstrong
Mr Paul Williams
Barbara Keeley
Mr David Crausby
Ms Julie Hilling
Ms Yasmin Qureshi
Mr Partington
Mr Andrew Bower
Mr Anthony Greally
Mr Terry Abbott
Ms Alice De La Rue
Mr Alan Hubbard
Ms Janet Baguley
Mr Neil Pike
Ms Diane Clarke
Mr Hussein Ahmed
Mr Ted Bleszynski
Mr Morris
Mrs Angeline
Humphreys
Katya Samokhvalova
Mr Mike Redshaw
Mr John Wright
Mrs Glenys Syddall
Mrs Helen Jackson
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
55
Organisation
Name
Organisation
North West Regional
Development Agency
North West Strategic
Health Authority
North West Tamil
Association
Northern Rail
Northern Rail
Northern Rail
Northern Trust
O2 (UK) Ltd
Octagon Theatre Trust
Office of Government
Commerce
Open Golf & Leisure
Limited
Open Space Society
Orange Personal
Communications Services
Ltd
ORC Partnership, The
Over Hulton Community
Group
P J LIVESEY GROUP
LIMITED
P. Wilson & Company
Pakistan Muslim
Organisation
Parkinson Commercial
Property Consultants
Partington & Associates
Paul Butler Associates
Paul Smith Design
Services
PCE Designs
Peacock & Smith
Peel Holdings Limited
Persimmon Homes (North
West) Ltd
Places for People
Developments
Places for People
Developments
PLANiT WRiGHT Town
Planning Consultancy &
Development Services
Planning Aid
The Planning Bureau
Limited
Mr Steven
Broomhead
Mr T Drew
Rail Passenger
Committee for the North
West
Railtrack PLC
The Ramblers Association
Manchester & High Peak
Area
The Ramblers Association
Manchester & High Peak
Area
Rapleys (pp B&E Boys)
Red Moss Action
Committee
Red Rose Forest
Redrow Homes
Refugee Action
RELATE (Greater
Manchester North)
Repect Advocacy Project
Mr Rob Wilkinson
(Resident Association)
Mr David Hardman
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
The Planning Bureau Ltd
(Planning Consultant)
Planning Potential
Plot of Gold
Post Office Property
Holdings
PRDS
Pritchard Associates
Probation Service
Prosperity for Life
PWL Architects
R.A.Fisk & Associates
Bolton Council
Mr V Manivanan
Mark Baker
Martyn Guiver
Graham Large
Mr S Vijars
Mr John Blackmore
Mr Robin Day
Mr Steven Alcock
Mr A Winthrop
Samee Ditta
Mr Tony Bellis
J.R Partington
Ms Sarah Smith
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
Mr Ed Kemsley
Mr Philip Rothwell
Ms Diane Aldcroft
Claire Morris
Angela Aldis
Linda Wright
Jan Beaumont
Jane Crass
Mr Alexander J.
Bateman
Mr Brian Legan
Ms Kate Sewell
Mr Robert Taylor
(Resident Association)
(Resident Association)
Road Haulage
Association
Roger Tym & Partners
Rok (Bolton)
Rowland Homes Ltd
Royal Commision on the
Historical Monuments of
England
Royal Town Planning
Institute
Royalle Estates
Rps Group
RPS Planning &
Development
RPS Planning &
Development Limited
RSPB
The RSPB
Mr Philip Rothwell
Mr Harvey Pritchard
John Brimley
Mr Otis Johnson
Mr Kurt Metcalfe
Rumworth ward
Rumworth ward
Rumworth ward
Russell Homes
RYA
SAHA
Salford City Council
Name
Mrs Glenys Syddall
Mr M J Short
Mrs Janet Cuff
Mrs Janet Cuff
Mr Mike Gibson
Mr J Holdsworth
Mr Tony Hothersall
Mr Stuart Binks
Anna Webster
Steve Griffiths
Mr Donald Gayle
Mrs Christine
Watson
Mrs V Adams
Mr Paula Adamson
Mrs Brenda Berry
Mrs Ann Crane
Mrs Vera Hanlon
Mrs Helen Ireland
Mrs Jean Key
Mr R Lilley
Mr Bernard
Ramsden
Mr Stephen Rock
Mrs Mary T Smith
Mrs Katherine
Walker
Mrs Marilyn Woods
Mrs Jean Wrennall
Mr Bernard Greep
Ms Kerry Whittle
Mr David Gray
Mr Joseph Keller
G Gardener
Mr Mark Krassowski
Mr Hugh Smith
Mr T Melling
Mr Andrew
Gouldstone
Cllr Ebrahim Adia
Cllr Ismail Ibrahim
Cllr Rosa Kay
Mr Daniel Kershaw
Peter Latham
Mr Jimmy McManus
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
56
Organisation
Salus Ltd.
Sanderson Weatherall
Savills
Savills (pp USB Triton
Property Fund)
Seddon Homes Limited
Sedgwick Associates
Sedgwick Associates
Sedgwick Associates (pp
SHMR)
Shire Consulting (pp
Barclays Bank)
Showman's Guild of GB
Lancs, Cheshire & North
Wales Section
Showmen's Guild of Great
Britain
showmens guild planning
rep
Shree Kutch Leva Patel
Society
Shree Kutch Satsang
Swaminarayan Temple
Shree Prajapati
Association
Shree Sorathia Prajapati
Community UK
SJS Property
Management
Smithills ward
Smithills ward
Smithills ward
Snydale Residents
Association
Society for the Protection
of Ancient Buildings
South Lancashire Bat
Group
Spatial Planning
Spawforths
Sport England
Sport England North West
SSSS Youth Association
StageCoach NorthWest
StageCoach NorthWest
Stanley Langley Holdings
Steele Associates
The Step by Step Project
Steve Brougham Architect
Steven Abbott Associates
Steven Abbott Associates
(pp Mike James
Properties)
Steven Abbott Associates
(pp Professional Designs
Ltd)
Stewart Milne Homes
Stewart Ross Associates
Stewart Ross Associates
Storeys:SSP
Strategic housing
Strategic Land
Partnerships
Bolton Council
Name
Will Mulvany
Mr Tim Price
Mr James McAllisterJones
Mr Ryan Watson
Brenda Sedgwick
Mr Paul Sedgwick
Mr Michael Fearn
Mrs V.E Midgley
Ms Leesa Beckwith
Mr Renny Mulhearn
Mr D K Seyani
Mr Manji Halai
Iswar Mistry
Mr M M Singadia
Mr C Hall
Cllr Roger Hayes
Cllr Anthony Radlett
Cllr Carole Swarbrick
Mr Chris Green
Mr Steve Parker
Mr Paul Walker
Ms Jennifer Peacock
Mr Paul Daly
Narendra Bojani
John Dickinson
Brian Rose
Mrs D Langley
Gerard Thomas
Mr Steven H Abbott
Mr Alastair Skelton
Mr Alastair Skelton
Mr Ian Fogg
Mr Stewart Ross
Ms Laura Ross
Ms Jane Everett
Jeff Smethurst
Mr Tim Baker
Organisation
Name
Street Design Partnership
Strutt & Parker
The Sudanese
Community of Bolton Muslim Group
Sughra Mosque
Sutcliffe Properties
SVHA
Swaminarayan Sidhat
Mandal
SWAN
T Mobile (UK) Ltd
T. Sutcliffe & Co. Ltd.
Tarmac
Taylor Wimpey Limited
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Taylor Wimpey, George
Wimpey Manchester Ltd
Taylor Woodrow
Developments Limited
Taylor Young
Taylor Young
TFGM
TFGM
The Theatres Trust
Tom Myerscough & Co.
Tonge with the Haulgh
ward
Tonge with the Haulgh
ward
Tonge with the Haulgh
ward
Tony Thorpe Associates
Town & Country Planning
Association
Trade Unions
Representative
Trades Council
Traveller Law Reform
Coalition
Turley Associates
Turley Associates
Turley Associates (pp
Sainsbury's Supermarkets
Ltd)
Turley Associates pp
Sainsburys
Turner & Partners
The Twentieth Century
Society
The Twentieth Century
Society
UK Coal Mining Ltd/RJB
Mining UK Ltd
United Utilities Property
Services
University of Bolton
University of Bolton
Urban Outreach
The Victorian Society
Vincent & Gorbing
Vincent Gobing Limited
Mr Paul Carr
Mr R W Fearnall
Tareg Abaka
Mr Bashir Ahmed
Mr & Mrs C Brown
Peter Smith
Mr Kimji
Mr David Chadwick
Mr Nick Atkins
Mr Mark Calvert
Mr G M Swann
Mr Paul Smith
Mr Derek Webber
Mr Ian Ford
Mr Guy Pearson
Ms Moira Piercy
Mr Richard Clowes
Ms Rose Freeman
Cllr Nicholas Peel
Cllr Elaine
Sherrington
Cllr Frank White
Martin McLoughlin
Martin Challender
Mr Bob May
David Diggle
Mr Greg Dickson
Mr Greg Dickson
Robin Henderson
Mr J Dickinson
Mr Dave Sherratt
Laurette Evans
Ms Sue Duncan
Dave Bagley
Mr Mark Wilson
Claire McIntosh
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
57
Organisation
Vincent Gorbing (pp SJS
property management)
Virgin Trains
Viridor
Vishwa Hindu Parishad
Vodafone
Vodafone Ltd
Wainhomes (North West)
Limited
Wakin Jones & Sons Ltd
Walton & Co Planning
Lawyers
Westbury Homes
Ltd/Wain Estates Ltd
Westhoughton
Community Centre
Westhoughton North &
Chew Moor ward
Westhoughton North &
Chew Moor ward
Westhoughton North &
Chew Moor ward
Bolton Council
Name
Mr Mark Wilson
Mr Peter Wishart
Mr Uttambhai D
Mistry
Louise Ellet
Rebecca George
Mr Peter Barlow
Mr Andy Shaw
Ms Vicki Richardson
Mr Jim Green
Cllr Martyn Cox
Cllr Christopher
Peacock
Organisation
Westhoughton South
ward
Westhoughton South
ward
Westhoughton South
ward
Westhoughton Town Hall
White Young Green Planning
Whitehead & Co
William Sutton Housing
Association
Wing Under Bolton Living
Waters International
Wolsey Securities Ltd
Women's National
Commission
Woodford Land Ltd
The Woodland Trust
The Woodland Trust
Yew Developments
Name
Cllr David Chadwick
Cllr Kevan Jones
Cllr David Wilkinson
Mrs Christine Morris
Mr Paul Shuker
Mr Tony Whitehead
Ms Angela Garrard
Robbie Chiphaliwali
Mr Shaun Kerfoot
Mr Phil Whitehouse
Mr E Pomfret
Mr Nick Sandford
Mr Martin Hodgkiss
Cllr Christine Wild
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
58
9b:
People with no stated organisation who were sent the letter
Name
Name
Name
Name
Mr & Mrs Samantha
& Rick Abram
Wendy Adamson
Wendy Adamson
Ms Louise Adamson
Ms Justine Adamson
Marian Ainscough
Mrs Ainscough
Mrs / Mr J & I
Ainscough
Mrs / Mr M & J
Ainscough
Miss Albarracin
Mrs Aldcroft
Ms Patricia Aldred
Mr R Aldred
Cllr Bob Allan
Mr Ian Anderson
Mr P.L Anderson
Mr Peter Anderson
Mr Robert Anderson
Rev. John Armstrong
Ms Maggy Ashton
Mr Robert Ashton
Ms Rosemary
Ashworth
Ray Atherton
Mrs Marian Bailey
Ms Joan Bailey
Mr & Mrs Robert &
Elaine Baker
Ms Sharon
Balderstone
Mrs D. H. Ball
Mr & Mrs Ball
Mrs Jennifer
Bamford
Mr Clifford Bannister
Mr Tom Bannister
Mr Robert Fawcett &
Barbara Jackson
Eileen Barlow
Ms Christine Barlow
Mrs A. Barnes &
family
Ms Kath Baron
Mr Kevin Bates
Mr & Mrs H Bateson
Mr & Mrs E & J
Beardmore
Mr & Mrs
Beardsworth
Mrs Pamela
Beaumont
Mr Derek Beek
Mr Greg Bell
Simon Bennett
B. W. Bent
Mr B.W Bent
Mr S Bentley
Andrew Berry
Mr Colin Berry
Mr & Mrs K & S
Berry
Ms Kathryn Berry
Mr & Ms Janice &
David Berry/Leonard
Mr & Mrs M Best
Mr & Mrs J & N
Bickerstaff
Mrs K Birchall
Mr M. C. Birchall
Ms Gale Blackburn
Mr Tony Blackhouse
Mr E M Blackledge
Mr Lindsay Blantern
Mr Andrew
Boardman
Mr Ronald
Boardman
Miss S Boddy
Ms Pat Bodie
Mrs / Mr Gillian &
Adrian Bodie
Mrs Paula Bolton
V.A & C.F Bonnett
Mrs Elizabeth Booth
Mr Francis Booth
Mr John Booth
Mr & Mrs M Booth
Mr R Booth
Mr Michael Booth
Mrs E.G Bootle
Ms Lorna Bousfield
Mr S Braddock
Ms Margaret Bradley
Mr & Mrs J & G
Bradley
Mr David Bradshaw
Mrs Kathleen Brian
David Bridge
Mr & Mrs Alan &
Marilyn Brindle
Mr Phil Broadhurst
Mr V Brodrick
Mr & Mrs C.H & J
Brooke
Simon Brooks
Miss Katie Brown
Ms Tracy Brown
Ms Christine Brown
Mr & Mrs S & M
Bryan
Mr R Bullough
Mr Eddie Burgess
Mr V Burgess
Mr M Burgess
Mr E Burton
David Butcher
Mr J Butt
Mr John Byron
Mrs J Caine
Jane Caldwell
Mr Doug Cameron
Ms Denise Camm
Patricia Cannon
Mr J.J Cansfield
Mr Pascal Carton
Mrs Barbara
Catterall
Mr C.G. Catterall
Mr & Mrs M & J
Chadwick
Mrs Linda Chadwick
Mr & Mrs Andrew /
Jo Chadwick/Welsh
Mr C Chambers
Mrs L.D Charlton
Mr / Mrs Barry &
Lynda Charlton
Mr K Charnock
Kieran Cheetham
Mr & Mrs K & M
Chow
Ms Emma Christey
Ms Lawson Christine
Mr Paul Christy
Mr & Mrs Clarke
Arthur Clemmett
Ms Emily Clift
Mr Thomas Clowes
Mrs Lynda Clutton
Mr Neil Coe
Mr / Mrs J Collier
Ms Eileen Collier
Mrs C Concannon
Mr / Mrs B & A
Conway
Mrs Anne-Marie
Conway
Ms Mabel Cook
Mr & Mrs Jacqui &
Graham Cook
Mrs E Cooke
Mr SP Cookson
Mr John Coope
Mr S.J Coope
Mrs A Cooper
Mr & Mrs J & J
Cooper
Mr Robert Costello
Tony Cottram
Mr B Coubert
Mrs M. Cowburn
Miss Samantha
Coyle
Mrs Ena Coyle
Mrs Ann Craven
Carole Crawley
Delyse Critchley
Mr L Croft
Mr & Mrs Gloria &
Keith Cross
Mr Preva Crossley
Mr & Mrs W & J
Croughan
Mrs Vera Cryer
Geoff Cubbin
Mrs Barbara Culver
Mr Phillip Cunliffe
Mr J Currie
Richard Curtii
Cynthia Dagnall
Mr Jan Darasz
Louise Darbyshire
Pat Darbyshire
Rev. Julia Davies
Mr & Mrs Graham &
Julia Davies
Mr Ceinwen Davies
Ms Julia Davies
Ms Tina Davies
Mr & Mrs W.F , J.R
& R Day
Mr & Mrs D.A & D
Dean
Yvonne Dickenson
Ms Julia Dixon
Mr & Mrs V Dobbs
Mr & Mrs James &
Lorraine Dobson
Ms & Mr Elizabeth/B
Dood/Taylor
Joanne Dore
Ruth Duckworth
Mrs C Duckworth
Mr Deryck M. Dulson
Ms Susan Dunning
Ms Kitty Dwyer
Rob Dyson
Mr Stuart, James,
James, Edwin Earith
Mrs / Mr Jan & Geoff
Eastham
Mr & Mrs William &
Angela Eaton
Mr & Mrs Rita &
Robert Eaton
Mr & Mrs R & K
Eccleshare
Mr R Eckersley
Mr & Mrs Harold &
Margaret
Edmondson
Mr T Edwards
Mr K Eggleton
Mr & Mrs Ellis
Mrs Sheila Ellwood
Ian Entwistle
Mr Evans
Mr J Evans
Mr Robert Evans
Brian Fairclough
Bolton Council
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
59
Name
Name
Name
Name
Mr & Mrs G
Fairclough
Mr & Mrs H & G.E
Fairclough
Dr Margaret
Fairhurst
Mr & Mrs F & N
Fairhurst
Mr S Falla
Mr & Mrs A Farley
Mr & Mrs W & N
Farnell
Mr David Farnworth
Mrs Betty Farr
Mr / Mrs Derek &
Barbara Farrimond
Mr David Farrow
Mr & Mrs James &
Lynne Fearick
Mrs / Mr Lynne &
Jim Fearick
Mrs / Mrs Christine &
Helen Fee
Miss Margaret Fields
Mrs / Mr Evelyn &
Alan Fishwick
John Fleming
Ms Deborah Fleming
Ms Iris Flemming
Mr John Fletcher
Mr Tom Fletcher
Ms & Mr Jan / Grace
Fletcher / Cousen
Sean Ford
Jeremy Foster
Ms Susan Foster
Alan Fox
Mr Roy.J Fozard
Mike Francis
Mr & Mrs B & R
Fretwell
Brian Gardner
Mr Steve Garside
Mr William Garside
Ms Iris Gatley
Mr B Gee
Generic Local Group
(via David Farrow)
Generic Local Group
(via Tony Webster)
Ms Frances Gentry
Mr & Mrs E.A & R
German
Jimi Gibbins
Mr Jeff Gibson
Cllr Jim Gilfillan
Andrew Glithero
Linda Glithero
Mr & Mrs P & L
Golbourne
Adrian Gollard
Peter Gore
Mrs / Mr Lynden &
Stephen Graham
Dr Helen Graham
Ms Karen Graham
Mr Chris Green
Mr F Green
Mrs J Green
Mrs J Greenhalgh
M. R. Gregory
Mrs Eileen Gregory
Gillian Gregory
Mr Chris Gregory
Ms Nelle Gribbin
Mr & Mrs Jacky &
Andy Gribbin
Mr & Mrs Jacky &
Andy Gribbin
Mr & Mrs Tony &
June Griffin
Mrs & Mr Joan & Bill
Grime
Mr John Grime
Mr Peter Grimshaw
Mr & Mrs Grundy
Ms Zoe Grundy
Ms F Grundy
Mr & Mrs Brian &
Enid Hall
Ms Madeleine Hall
Mike Hallam
Ms Cath Hamilton
Mr & Mrs Geoff &
Ann Hamlett
Mr & Mrs D
Hampson
Mrs B Hands
Mrs Joyce
Hankinson
Mr & Mrs N Hansford
Mr & Mrs Doreen &
David Hardman
Ms & Mr Jasmin,
David & Amanda
Hardman
Mr Wayne Hardman
Mr & Mrs Bernard,
David & Linda Hardy
Mr & Mrs Harper
Mr & Mrs J Harrison
Mr & Mrs Norman &
Judith Harrison
Ms Jenny Harrison
Mr Arnold Harrison
Ms Lisa Harrison
Mr & Mrs Neil &
Jacki Harrison
Mr & Mrs P & J
Harrison
Mrs / Mr Mary &
Doug Harrow
Mr & Mrs J.B & M
Hart
Mr Alan Hart
Ms Jean Hart
Mr & Mrs John
Haslam
Ms Carol Haslam
David Hawkins
William Hawthorne
Ms Elizabeth Hayes
Mrs D. M. Heald
Ms Lynda Healey
Mr & Mrs P & H
Heathcote
Colin Heaton
Mr Michael Heaton
Mr / Mrs Peter/Linda
Heaton/White
Mr Tom Heavyside
Dave Helene
Mr W Henniker
Mr John Heseltine
Mr Simon Heyes
Norma Hibbert
Ms H. Hibbert
Mr & Mrs John &
Dorothy Higham
Ms Angie & Joanne
Hill/Evison
Mrs Julie Hilling
Peter Hilton
Mr Paul Hinkinson
Mr M Hirst
Mr & Mrs Allan /
Eileen Hodge
Mr & Mrs Hodge
Mrs Hodgekiss
Mrs Edith Hodgson
Ms Margaret Hodson
Mr John Holdbrook
Ms Vera & Hillary
Holden
Mr Mark Holehouse
Anne Holroyd
Mr Paul Holt
Mr & Mrs M
Horsefield
Mr R Houghton
Mr & Mrs I & S
Howard
Ms Samantha
Howard
Sue Howarth
Barry Howarth
Mr J.A. Howarth
Ms & Mr Hannah,
Helen & Steven
Howarth
Mr Ron Howarth
Mr Rick Howcroft
Mr & Mrs Ken &
Lynda Howe
Mrs Rosemary
Howell
Mrs Rosemary
Howell
Ms Holly Hughes
Mr / Mrs Len / Ann
Hughes / Barton
Mrs Rosemary
Humphreys
Ms Alison Hunt
Ms Emma Hunt
Mr Keiron Hunter
Ms Linda Hurst
Mr & Mrs R Hurst
Mr & Mrs Sandra &
Ian Hurst
Mr & Mrs Sandra &
Ian Hurst
Mr Andrew Iredale
Mr Richard
Isherwood
Louise Jackson
Eileen Jackson
Mr & Mrs Jackson
Ms Angela Jackson
Mr Barry Jackson
Ms Bethan Jackson
Ms Jenifer Jackson
Ms Pamela Jackson
Ms Sian Jackson
Mr Mark James
Mr & Mrs Mike &
Anne Jeffries
Mr Barrie Jeffries
Mr W Johnson
Mrs Christine
Johnson
Mr Simon Johnson
Mr Andrew Johnson
Mr Robert Johnston
Mr D Johnston
Ms & Mr
Julie/Anthony
Johnston/Willcock
Enid Jones
Mrs Suzanne Jones
Mr Jones
Mr K Jones
Mr & Mrs Jones
Mr W Jones
Mrs S Jones
Mr Darren Jones
Barry Jubb
Alex Kay
Ms Jesamine Kay
Ms Samantha Kay
Mrs Lindsey Kell
Mr J Kelleher
John Kelly
Mr R Kenyon
Mrs O.M Kenyon
Barbara Kershaw
Mr & Mrs D &
Brenda Kershaw
Mr & Mrs D &
Brenda Kershaw
Ms Rachael Kirkby
Bolton Council
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
60
Name
Name
Name
Name
Mr David Kirkman
Miss Joyce Knight
Ms Carol Knowles
Mr Oliver Lancaster
Mr Lawrence
Langford
Mr Robert Larkinson
Jean Laurie
Mr J.B Leonard
Mr A Leonard
Mr & Mrs Andrew &
Toni Lilley
Mr & Mrs Brian Ruth
Linforth
Mr Stuart Lingard
John Lippiatt
Mrs Dorothy Livesey
Mr D Locker
Mr John Loder
Mr Steve Lomas
Mr Bob Lomax
Michael & Jennifer
Lomax
Mr R Lomax
Mr & Mrs Lomax
Mr T Lonsdale
Mr Robert Lowe
Mr T Lowe
Mrs Gwen Lucas
Ms Sandra Lucas
Mr Zuber Lulat
Mr Macdonald
Mr & Mrs Shirley &
Robert Macdonald
Mr I Macdougall
Mrs / Miss
Dorothy/Bernadette
Macdougall
Ms Kathrine
Maddock
Mrs & Mr C.A & P
Makin
Mo Mangera
Jeffrey Mangnall
Mr & Mrs D & G
Mangnall
Mr & Mrs K & M
Mann
Ms Cheryl MarsdenMcGlynn
Mr J. A. Marshall
Ian Marshall
Mrs Wynn Marshall
Audrey Marsland
Mr / Mrs Alan &
Jacquie Martin
Mr J Massey
Mr & Mrs G Matlew
H Matthews
Mr H Matthews
Mr S. J. McCabe
Mr & Ms S/B
McCabe/Whitehead
Mr & Ms S/B
McCabe/Whitehead
Doris & Connor
McCloud
Mr / Mrs Allan &
Julie Mckevitt
Mr & Mrs Stuart &
Sylvia Mckinstry
Derek Meacher
Kevan Mealor
Mr Chris Menand
Mrs Joan Messer
Mr Partington
Michael
Mr & Mrs A & H
Middlebrook
Mrs & Mr Anne &
John Miles
Mr T Miller
Mr & Mrs C Miller
Mr Trevor Moorcroft
Mr & Mrs E & T
Moorecroft
Mr Ernest Morgan
Cllr Andrew Morgan
Mr & Mrs Terry &
Janet Morley
Mr & Mrs A.B. Morris
Mrs / Mr Anna &
John Morris
Mrs / Mr Anna &
John Morris
Mr John Morris
Mr Richard Mortimer
Mr & Mrs G & B
Moss
Mr Kirk Mulhearn
Mr Geoffrey
Mullineaux
Carol Ann Mulvaney
Ms Elizabeth Munro
Ms & Mr Julie /
Kenneth
Murphy/Walker
Ms & Mr Julie /
Kenneth
Murphy/Walker
Mr Ron Murray
Ms Joyce Nelson
Miss Heather Nelson
Mrs New
Mr C Newton
Ms Grace
Nightingale
Mr & Mrs Sheila &
Terry Nixon
Mr & Mrs Sheila &
Terry Nixon
Ms Christa Noble
Mr & Mrs Jim &
Doreen Norris
Mr Francis Nurtney
Mr & Mrs Francis &
Lynda Nurtney
Mr & Mrs James &
Denise Nuttall
Mr Edward Nuttall
Mr / Mrs Graham &
Lynda Nuttall
Mrs Denise Nuttall
Mr / Mrs Phil & Kath
Nuttall
Mr & Mrs Derek &
Eileen Ode
Mr Gary Oldfield
Mr Gordon Ord
Mr Michael Ord
Mr O'Reilly
Ms Florence Ormrod
Mr & Mrs G & J Orrel
Mr Geoffrey Orrell
Mr Laurence Owens
Mr Richard Parker
Ms Florence Parkes
Mrs Jacqueline
Parkinson
Mr & Ms Steven,
Stephanie, Elizabeth
& Diane Parkinson
Mr James Parkinson
Mr & Mrs Irene & Bill
Parkinson
Mr & Mrs Irene & Bill
Parkinson
Mr Simon ParkinsonJones
Mrs Anna Parrott
Mr Clive Parrott
Ms Anna Parrott
Mr & Mrs Stewart &
Sarah Partington
Mr Vinodbhai Patel
B Pearce
Ms Jean Pegg
Mr J Pemberton
Ms Yasmin &
Jordana / Julie
Pemberton /
Webster
Ms Yasmin &
Jordana / Julie
Pemberton /
Webster
Mr & Mrs A & L
Pendlebury
Mrs Jennifer Perry
Ms Rozmarie Peters
Mr & Mrs B & CH
Peters
Mr & Mrs Phil & John
Mr & Mrs L
Pilkington
Albert Pilling
Mr & Mrs Frank &
Olwen Pimblett
Mr & Mrs Dave &
Anne Pinnington
George Platt
Mr Michael Platt
Mr & Mrs Sylvia &
Arnold Pollitt
Mrs / Mr Margaret &
David Porter
Mr & Mrs D&E
Powell
Mrs Debra Pratt
Mr & Mrs W A
Prescott
Mr & Ms B/L
Prescott/Hardy
John Price
Mrs E Price
Ms Vivien Price
Ms Vicky Protano
Mr Douglas Pryce
Mr M Purdy
D Purnell
Mrs Hannah Pursall
Mrs Helen Quigley
Mr & Mrs Joseph &
Maureen Radcliffe
Mr / Mrs Stewart &
Vivien Ralph
Mr & Mrs Darren,
Dawn & Joely
Randle
Mr & Mrs Darren,
Dawn & Joely
Randle
Mr P.J Ranicar
Mr & Mrs D.W, E &
Alan Ratcliffe
A Read
Mrs J Read
Mrs Joyce Reed
Mr D Regan
Mr E Rennie
Alan Rhodes
Mr & Mrs David &
Susan Richards
Mr Robert
Richardson
Mr & Mrs A Riley
Mrs Marjorie Riley
Terence Riley
Mrs F Riley
Mr Paul Rimmer
Paul Risby
Mr & Mrs Mike &
Joan Risley
Ms Jackie Roberts
Mr William Roberts
Mr & Ms G & W /
Marshall Roberts /
Smith
Mr Keith Robins
Mr Brian Robinson
Bolton Council
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
61
Name
Name
Name
Name
Mr / Mrs William &
Joan Rogers
Mr & Ms J/F
Rogerson/Berry
Mr Ronald Roodnat
Cllr (Mr) John
Rothwell
Mr & Mrs J Roughley
Mr Robert Rowell
Mr Ken Rowland
Mr / Mrs
Stephen/Elizabeth
Rowland
Mr & Mrs Roy &
Doreen Rowland
Mr Michael Rowley
Ms Jennie Russell
Mr Stuart Ryan
Mr & Mrs Ryan
Mrs F Ryley
Mrs J Salter
Mr Andrew
Sanderson
Cathy Savage
Karen Saxon
Ms Joan Schofield
Mrs Denise Scott
Mrs Denise Scott
Ms Victoria
Scowcroft
Syed-Makki Shah
Mr Shaf Shaik
Mr Shallicker
Mr D Sharplin
Mr & Mrs Arnold &
Barbara Sharrock
Ms Frances
Sharrouk
Brian & Helen Shaw
Mr & Mrs B Shaw
Mr & Mrs Alan Neil &
Kathy Shaw
Mr Thomas Shaw
Mr & Mrs Alan &
Gillian Shaw
Mr & Mrs M & D
Shaw
Mr E Shepherd
Mr & Mrs Sherratt
Miss Nadia Siddiqui
Mr Howard Sidlow
Mr & Mrs Ellen &
Samuel Simkiss
Mr G Simm
Mrs Kathryn
Simmons
Mr Singh
Mr & Mrs Jan &
Andy Sloan
James Peter Smith
Robin Smith
Mr Smith
Mr Andrew Smith
Mr Ian Smith
Mr James Smith
Mr Warren Smith
Mr & Mrs Bernard &
Julie Smith
Mr Rob Smith
Mr A Smith
Mrs Andrea Smith
Mr & Mrs Robert &
Barbara Sofield
Mr & Mrs R & J
Solomon
Neville Southern
Mr & Mrs J.B.
Southern
Mr Andrew Southern
Ms Norma
Southworth
Mrs Jean
Southworth
Mr & Ms Michael &
Cath Spragg/Marlor
Mrs A.P Starkey
Mr Bryan Stears
Mrs Mildred
Stevenson
Mr & Mrs Mark &
Julie Stevenson
Mr Andrew Stewart
Mr & Mrs Andrew &
Alison Storey
Mr Ron Stower
Mr Henry Stringer
Alan Stubbs
Mrs Sharon Sturgess
Ms Che Such
Mrs Clare Sutton
Mr Raymond
Swindells
Ms Debra Swindells
Ms Dorothy Syddall
Mr Andrew & Jane
Tatloc
Mr Alan Taylor
Mr & Mrs Judith &
Alan Taylor
Mr & Mrs Deborah,
Michael & Morgan
Taylor
Mr Alan Taylor
Mr Rachael Taylor
Mr Keith Taylor
Mr & Ms Ben &
Rachel Taylor &
Clarke
Mr & Mrs J & T.N
Theaker
Ms Pamela
Thompson
Mr G.K Thompson
Mr G Thompson
Ms Angela
Thompson
Valerie Thornley
Mr & Mrs Tomlinson
Ms Louise Toone
Mrs R Topping
Mr & Mrs Rosemary
& Dennis Topping
Ms Marie Turner
Mr Alan Turner
Mr Alan Turner
Mr & Mrs Fred &
Ellen Tyldesley
Mr Graeme Tyrrell
Mr Graham
Unsworth
Mr & Mrs G & J
Unsworth
Mr William Usher
Mr & Mrs Phillip &
Joan Valjalo
Mrs Joan Vanes
Ms Susan Viney
Mr & Mrs J & K
Waddington
Ms Sharon Walkden
Teresa Walker
Mrs Olive Walker
Mr & Mrs Walker
Miss Barbara
Walmsley
Walter Walsh
Christine Walsh
Mr Graham Walsh
Mrs Jean M Walsh
Ms Margaret Walsh
Mr & Mrs Dave &
Alma Walsh
Cllr Alan Walsh
Mr & Mrs Peter &
Jocelyn Walsh
Edith Wardley
Mr Simon Warford
Pat Warner
David Warner
Ms Christina Watson
Mr Anthony Webster
Ms Julie Webster
Ms Caroline Weekes
Mrs Melanie
Wharton
Joyce Whitehead
Joyce Whitehead
Ms Irene Whitehead
Miss Diane
Whittaker
Miss Janine
Whittaker
Mr Ken Whitworth
Denise Wilkinson
Mr Raymond
Wilkinson
Mr & Mrs R & J
Wilkinson
Mr P Wilkinson
Roger Williams
Mr S. J. Williams
Mr Kenneth Williams
Mr Sydney Williams
Ms Daisy Williams
Mr Kenneth Williams
Mr & Mrs Tom &
Kate Williams
Mr & Mrs Tom &
Kate Williams
Mr Brian Williams
Mr D Williamson
Mr Peter Wills
Mr & Mrs Julia &
Peter Wills
Ms Angela Wilson
Ms Susan Wilson
Mr & Mrs A & AC
Wilson
Lynda Winrow
Ms M Withington
Mr D. G. Wood
Mr Donald Wood
Mr Graham Wood
Mr John R. Woods
Mr J Woods
Mr & Mrs P & V
Woodward
Brenda Wright
Mr Steven Wright
Mr & Mrs W Wright
Mrs Brenda Wright
Mr Brian Wroe
Mr David Wyatt
Mr John Wynne
Josephine WynneEyton
David Yates
Mr J.A. Yates
Mr J.A. Yates
Mr Adrian Yates
Mr John Yates
Mr & Mrs Phil & John
Yates
Mr Tom Young
Mrs Vivienne Young
Mr Young
Ms & Mr
Deborah/Ian
Young/Anderson
Bolton Council
Appendix 9 Draft Plan consultation letter addressees
62
Appendix 10 A schedule of comments on the Draft Plan together with the council’s response to them
10a:
Comments on Allocations DPD
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Daly
Sport England
The land which Clarendon Schools
occupies will be converted into
recreational open space once the
school has relocated. This will mean
there will be no overall loss of open
space.
Connor Vallelly
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
Policy A1 allocates land in Heywood Park for a replacement for
Clarendon primary school. This allocation forms part of a broader site
that constitutes a playing field. The development of this site would result
in the loss of playing filed land, including an artificial grass football pitch
and multi use games area. Sport England objects to the allocation of all
sites containing sport and recreation facilities unless the requirements of
Planning Policy Guidance note 17 and our own playing field and planning
policies are met.
Paragraph 2.6 of the draft DPD states that because of the concentration
of new housing to be provided at the former Loco Works site it is
predicted that a new two-form entry primary school will be required. HVL
request that this text is amended with the following addition:
“Discussions will take place with the developers of the former Loco
Works site regarding the provision of a new primary school. The potential
for the expansion of existing facilities and the timing of the delivery of this
facility are to be confirmed.” This amendment is required to ensure that
the DPD is sufficiently flexible in view of ongoing pre-application
discussions for this major regeneration proposal.
Have demographics been worked out for the next 15 years? Are there
enough services (e.g. schools) to accommodate the increase in
population?
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
63
Policy M2.7 of the Core Strategy
establishes that new or expanded
educational services must be provided
to cater for the educational needs
arising from the development at the
Horwich Loco Works. The scale of
development planned at HLW means
that it is likely that a 2-form entry
primary school will be required to
support this development.
Bolton’s population is projected to
increase by around 7.3% in the next
twenty-five years, from 263,700 in
2008, to 283,000 in 2033, according to
the 2008-based sub-national
population projections. This is a total
increase of 29,300 people, with an
average gain of 772 people per year.
In some parts of the borough, there is
an ongoing Primary School Expansion
Programme taking place, due to an
increase in birth rate. This will need to
be supplemented with additional
spaces in secondary schools from
2015/16 onwards.
Name
Alan Hodson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Can the Green Belt be built on for educational purposes?
The National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) has recently been
published, this retains protection for
Green Belt and states the following:
"As with previous Green Belt policy,
inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt
and should not be approved except in
very special circumstances." The
NPPF provides a list of exceptions for
new buildings in the Green Belt, but
this does not include buildings for
educational purposes.
Manchester, Bolton and
Bury Canal Society
The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society are very pleased to see
in Policy RA1.10 that significant recreational areas along the line of The
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal will be protected from adverse
development. We are also pleased to note the support on page 20
Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 will see the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
protected from development. Page 22 5.18 also is an issue close to our
hearts so we support no reduction of protected open land.
Support is noted.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
64
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Stephen Hedley
Natural England
Some of the land proposed for development at Cutacre is green belt,
although part of the loss of green belt will be replaced by proposed new
green belt within this M61 Corridor. The principle of change to the green
belt here was established, we understand, at the Core Strategy stage.
We welcomed at the Core Strategy stage the recognition that
development of Cutacre will need to take into account the ecological
importance of the site, and that this would need to be addressed in the
Allocations Document and any planning application.
In broad terms, the proposed employment allocation would take up more
than half of the existing Site of Biological Interest (SBI). Our
understanding from discussion with Mr Godley is that much of the land
affected and proposed for employment development has already been
worked for open cast coal and any biological interest has therefore been
much affected. New ponds have however been dug for the newt
population outside the areas worked to mitigate impacts and to
accommodate the newt population, including great crested newts (a
European protected species).
The proposed allocation at Cutacre would have a major impact on the
existing Site of Biological Importance (SBI). While Policy CG1 in the Core
Strategy states that the council with its partners will safeguard and
enhance biodiversity, signalling that the biodiversity interest of the site
would be protected, we would need to be satisfied that favourable
conservation status will be maintained if development is to go ahead as
planned.
While we are aware of the ecological report submitted in 2010, we may
need to have an up-to-date ecological survey and, in any event, an up-todate ecological report, including proposed mitigation, to be able to form a
firm opinion on the proposed boundary of the allocation. In the absence
of this, we must state our substantial concern about the impact on the
SBI and any potential impacts on protected species.
We would wish to be further consulted and to be involved in the
continued evolution of the Allocations DPD and on both the outline and
the detailed proposals for the site in order to be satisfied that appropriate
avoidance and mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Opencast coal operations have been
carried out since the designation of the
Site of Biological Importance. Land
within the proposed development
boundary is now of very limited
ecological interest and mitigation has
taken place as part of the resulting
restoration proposals, concentrating
ecological interest outside the
boundaries of the proposed
development. Any planning
application for the site will consider the
effects of development on adjoining
areas of ecological interest, but this is
not a matter of principle that would
affect the development of the site.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
65
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Rachael Copping
Peel Environmental
Cutacre: We support proposals for onsite renewable energy generation as
part of large scale employment development and encourage such proposals
to be considered as early as possible within the development process. As
such, we consider it appropriate to promote opportunities for on-site
renewable energy generation within the Allocations DPD, especially with
regard to the Cutacre employment development area which is a large scale
strategic employment site. Such energy generation has the potential to
provide adjacent employment development with heating, cooling and
electricity generation, as appropriate to the proposed uses on site, and
should be encouraged within the Plan. We therefore support the identification
on page 22/23 of the Draft Allocations DPD that the Cutacre employment
development area would be appropriate for both target 1 and target 2
typologies dependent on the type of energy required by development i.e.
network expansion area (locations where the proximity of new and existing
buildings create sufficient density to support district heating and cooling) and
electricity intense area (locations where the predominant building type has allelectric services, or a high level or proportion of demand for electricity.)
The Core Strategy provides policies for
renewable and low carbon energy
generation through policies CG1 and
CG2. Support for the identification of
Cutacre as a location for the
generation of low and zero carbon
energy development is noted; to
provide improved clarity and flexibility
on this issue, the policy approach and
proposals map have been amended.
The Cutacre site provides a significant opportunity to promote zero and low
carbon energy generation to provide adjacent employment development from
the outset. The promotion of such opportunities should be encouraged within
the Allocations DPD and should support a variety of energy production
options to enable sufficient flexibility. A variety of renewable energy resources
should be considered including Biomass, which includes the biodegradable
fraction of industrial and municipal waste. Major new development such as
Cutacre should also be designed with an appropriate level of internal district
heating infrastructure.
The Allocations DPD should provide appropriate policies with a presumption
in favour of all renewable/low carbon energy generation development and
provide specific proposals for key employment areas which are being
allocated through the Plan. Renewable and low carbon decentralised energy
schemes are an important part of meeting carbon reduction targets and
would assist in achieving sustainable employment development areas. In
summary, Energy supply from local renewable and local low carbon
decentralised energy sources using a diverse range of technologies should
be planned for within the Allocations DPD, as detailed above.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
66
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Blackshaw Brook (areas of open greenspace in Bradley Fold) is not
shown on the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Bretherton Land and lower end of Cunningham Clough areas of open
greenspace in Westhoughton are not shown on the draft Allocations Plan
as potential Local Nature Reserve. Expansion of the existing
Cunningham Clough Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Bridge Street Horwich Local Nature Reserve (area of open greenspace
in Horwich) was declared as a Local Nature Reserve in October 2011. It
is currently shown as a potential Local Nature Reserve on the draft
Allocations Plan.
Captains Clough (area of open greenspace in Smithills) is not shown on
the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The Allocations Plan will be amended
to reflect the status of this site.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Bolton Council
Clifton Moss (area of wooded mossland and open greenspace in
Kearsley) is not shown on the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local
Nature Reserve.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
67
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Firwood Fold and Longsight Park (areas of historical semi-natural
woodland and parkland in Firwood Fold and Scope 'oth Bank) are not
shown on the draft Allocations Plan as potential Local Nature Reserves.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
High Shores Clough (area of ancient semi-natural woodland in Smithills)
is not shown on the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature
Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Ladyshore area of woodland and open greenspace in Little Lever, is not
shown on the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Lostock Hall Mire (area of open greenspace in Horwich) is not shown on
the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Melrose Basin (area of open greenspace in Little Lever) was declared as
a Local Nature Reserve in Feb 2009 - part of the Moses Gate Local
Nature Reserve. This is not showing on the draft Allocations Plan as an
existing Local Nature Reserve.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The Allocations Plan will be amended
to reflect the status of this site.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
68
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
New Park Wood (Pretoria Pit site) (areas of woodland and open
greenspace of historic importance in Over Hulton) is not shown on the
draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Queens Park area of woodland river corridor is not shown on the draft
Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Ravenden Woods and surrounding areas (areas of ancient semi-natural
woodland and pasture in Smithills) are not shown on the draft Allocations
plan as potential Local Nature Reserves.
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Red Moss SSSI (area of open greenspace in Horwich) is not shown on
the draft Allocations Plan as a potential Local Nature Reserve.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
69
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Andrew Grundy
Enviromental Services
Department
Seven Acres Country Park and Thicketford Road areas of open
greenspace in Breightmet are not shown on the draft Allocations Plan as
potential Local Nature Reserves. Expansion of the existing Seven Acres
Local Nature Reserve.
The plan has been amended to reflect
formal declaration of Bridge Street,
Hall Lee Bank and Upper Bradshaw
Valley as LNRs and to make
amendments to the existing Moses
Gate LMR by the inclusion of Melrose
Basin. Only existing LNRs and those
proposed to be declared within 2 years
are now shown on the plan.
Support is noted.
Steven Wright
Steven Wright
Anthony
Backhouse
Mark Davies
Bolton Council
English Democrats
1. I welcome the decision to retain the Protected Open Land Site at
Ditchers Farm, Westhoughton and protect this from development for the
remainder of the plan period to 2026. This piece of land represents an
important open space to retain the green gap between Wingates and the
housing on the former Metal Box site.
4. The Site of Biological Importance off Metal Box Way in Westhoughton
could be expanded to cover the whole area currently enclosed by a fence
to protect Orchids in this area (to include the area south east of the
current boundary - enclosed by Metal Box Way and Glazebury Drive).
This would prevent additional development on the directly adjacent land
which could have negative impacts on the site of Biological Importance.
With so many people living in such a small country the outcome has to
be that you either swamp the place with houses of face a housing
shortage. Any Councillor who opposes the continued wreckage of our
green spaces should be lobbying MP's of their political parties to speak
out against the overpopulation of our country. 51 Million people living in
England is more than enough!
We are pleased to see that the council continues to use brown field sites
rather than use up precious countryside which is of great value to the
area and can not be replaced when gone.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
70
The responsibility of assessing the
quality of, and designating boundaries,
for Sites of Biological Importance falls
to the Greater Manchester Ecological
Unit, and these are reflected through
the Proposals Map.
As set out in the Core Strategy, the
overall strategy is to prioritise the
redevelopment of brownfield land over
that of greenfield. In order to meet
national targets for the delivering
sufficient housing, some limited
greenfield sites do however need to be
identified. Core Strategy policy CG1
does allow the loss of informal
greenspace within the urban area to
meet housing objectives provided that
remaining greenspaces area improved
as a result.
Support is noted.
Name
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Two Towns Area Forum
Residents seeked assurances that the existing protection in place for the
bowling green at the Greenwood Arms would not be reduced, despite the
fact that the bowling green would not be illustrated on the new proposals
map.
Paragraph 5.13 of the Draft Allocations
Plan clarifies that open space sites of
less than 0.4 ha are still subject to
Core Strategy policy CG1, even
though these smaller sites are not
shown on the Proposals Map. An
assessment would have to be made at
the time of a planning application for
development as to whether a specific
piece of open land should remain
undeveloped, depending on the
relevant circumstances at the time.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
71
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Cutacre Policy M3
• GMEU’s objection to this allocation was raised during the progress of
the Core Strategy. It is recognised that despite GMEU’s view the
allocation has proceeded, however there are a number of outstanding
ecological issues that still need to be considered in its allocation.
• GMEU are of the strong opinion that the Council are continuing to fail to
recognise the importance of the metapopulation of great crested newt
(European Protected Species under Habitats Regulations 2010) and in
addition that this area supports other biodiversity interest in relation to
bats and UK Biodiversity Priority Species of birds and mammals.
• European Protected Species such as great crested newt need to be
considered extremely carefully within the planning system in order that
the Habitats Regulation requirements are met and any future licences
are granted.
• The Sustainability Appraisal at the table in Appendix 3 indicates that the
area is currently damaged and therefore states that there will be no
additional biodiversity impact on the site. This assessment ignores the
previously constructed mitigation programmes for the area which were
drawn up prior to the reclamation of the site. The identified potential
negative effects of the scheme (Sustainability Appraisal section 8.4) do
not identify any adverse ecological effects and no mitigation is proposed.
This is totally inadequate as an appraisal of the potential impact of this
allocation on the biodiversity interest of the area and would fail to meet
the standards required by the Habitats Regulations.
• GMEU strongly recommend that this allocation clearly identifies the
requirements of maintaining the biodiversity interest through the
allocation site and enhances the value of the area around the site
including linkages into other adjacent important areas of biodiversity.
• I would suggest that the effect of this allocation on the biodiversity
interest of the allocation is very negative and should be treated
accordingly as the allocations plan is developed.
Opencast coal operations have been
carried out since the designation of the
Site of Biological Importance. Land
within the proposed development
boundary is now of very limited
ecological interest and mitigation has
taken place as part of the resulting
restoration proposals, concentrating
ecological interest outside the
boundaries of the proposed
development. Any planning
application for the site will consider the
effects of development on adjoining
areas of ecological interest, but this is
not a matter of principle that would
affect the development of the site.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
72
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Hamish
Robertshaw
DTZ on b/h Howarth
Estates
We object to chapter 5 ‘Cleaner and Greener Bolton’ insofar as it
provides insufficient detail regarding the change to the Green Belt
boundaries at Cutacre.
Under the sub-heading ‘What does the Core Strategy say?’ there should
be direct reference to Core Strategy Policy M3 and paragraph 5.27
relating to Cutacre. In accordance with the Core Strategy, text should be
added to state that ‘up to about 40 hectares are to be removed from the
Green Belt and that the extent of this will depend upon on up-to-date
evidence on the state of the local economy and regional policy’.
The Allocations Plan does not need to
directly replicate information already
provided in existing adopted policy
documents. The extent to which the
Green Belt boundary is to be amended
is best shown via the use of visual
means i.e. as is shown on the
Proposals Map. However it is
acknowledged that more justification is
needed to describe the exact location
of the proposed new Green Belt
boundary and employment allocation,
and this is set out in the Explanatory
Statement.
Support for the identification of Cutacre
as a location for the generation of low
and zero carbon energy development
is noted; to provide improved clarity
and flexibility on this issue, the policy
approach and proposals map have
been amended.
We object to the wording of paragraph 5.10 as this does not reflect the
content of the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report. In paragraph 58 of his
report, the Inspector has found already that there are exceptional
circumstances that require and justify a change to the Green Belt
boundary. As such the boundary adjustment at Cutacre is not to be
considered, but is required, albeit the extent of the change may be
considered. As such, we suggest the text is amended as follows:
Renewal area and outer area policies specify that Green Belt
boundaries, as defined on the Proposals Map, will not be changed
except around Cutacre, where a boundary adjustment to allow economic
development will be considered required.
Please see our comments under ‘Proposals Map’ below regarding
demarcation of Sites’ of Biological Importance, which relate to paragraph
5.12.
We wish to comment on paragraph 5.19 regarding allocation of Green
Belt land. We consider that this paragraph needs to include significantly
greater consideration of the Green Belt boundary amendment required at
Cutacre, given that the Core Strategy (Policy M3 and paragraph 5.27)
indicates specifically that the extent of this will be determined in
Allocations Plan document. The amendment to Green Belt boundaries
may be considered in detail in this section or cross-referred to any sitespecific policy on Cutacre that may be included.
The consideration of this should refer to the Proposals Map as this
indicates the proposed amended Green Belt boundary at the Cutacre
site, which we support for the following key reasons:
· It represents the optimum balance between development land
provision, response to physical constraints, enhancement of biodiversity,
protection of amenity and the preservation of the Green Belt
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
73
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
· It provides the required 80ha net developable area of employment land
· It will provide large, regularly shaped development parcels with
presence on the A6 frontage required for an economically attractive
employment site
· It responds positively to the various physical constraints that will
influence development of the site, including topography, ground
conditions and services infrastructure
· It provides linked areas of vegetation and habitat to enhance
biodiversity
· It provides extensive separation from the employment development site
to the residential area of Over Hulton to the west
Our justification of the proposed boundary is expanded upon in the
enclosed Cutacre Allocations Boundary Consideration Paper (January
2012).
We support the identification on page 22/23 of the Draft Allocations DPD
that the Cutacre employment development area would be appropriate for
both target 1 and target 2 typologies dependent on the type of energy
required by the development. The Cutacre site provides a significant
opportunity to promote zero and low carbon energy generation to provide
adjacent employment development from the outset. The promotion of
such opportunities should be encouraged within the Allocations DPD and
should support a variety of energy production options to enable sufficient
flexibility. Please see the representations submitted by Peel
Environmental Ltd for further details.
Carol Greenhalgh
Bolton Council
Ladybridge Residents
Association
Dealey Street Allotments: Pleased to see that although it appears they
will be surrounded by housing that they are to be retained
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
74
Support is noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Sedgwick
Sedgwick Associates
This Draft Allocations Plan (DAP) Consultation Response is written with regard the
site edged red on the attached plan. The site forms part of the Horwich and Blackrod
urban area. It is proposed that the site be allocated for mixed-use development. The
former Greenwood Arms formed part of the urban area of Horwich under the UDP.
The former bowling green to the rear was allocated as a recreation site under policy
O2. Two planning applications (86341/11 and 86927/11) were recently refused by the
Planning Committee, following Officer recommendation for approval. However, the
reasons for refusal were design related; the principle of the proposed mixed-use
redevelopments was accepted, including the loss of the former bowling green which
was identified as being surplus to requirements by the LPA and Members.
The site is well suited to a mixed use development. Commercial development could
occupy the front of the site where the former Greenwood Arms currently stands (it is
due to be demolished soon); and, residential development could occupy the rear part
of the site, the former bowling green. Around 14No. dwellings could be
accommodated to the rear of the site.
The entirety of the site is disused; the commercial development of the front part of the
site is deliverable, as is the housing development of the rear part of the site. Our
clients have secured a national provider of convenience stores for the occupation of
part of the commercial element.
The land to the rear is available for housing development now, offers a suitable
location for housing development now and there is a good prospect that housing will
be delivered within five years.
There are no legal or ownership problems. The submission of two applications
demonstrates a firm interest to develop. A third application is also due to be
submitted shortly.
The Council’s decisions on the previous applications confirmed that there are no
policy restrictions to be overcome. Design is the only issue that now needs to be
resolved. Research undertaken for the applications demonstrates that there are no
physical problems or limitations that would prevent the development of the site.
Development of the site would have no adverse impacts on the environmental
conditions in the area or on the amenities of neighbouring residents. It is also
demonstrable that the site is in a highly sustainable location. There are no market,
cost or delivery factors that would prevent the development coming forward in the
next 5 years.
The site is therefore deliverable when assessed against the requirements of ‘SHLAA
Practice Guidance’. Its allocation, in part, for housing is therefore supported.
The history of planning applications on
this site shows that it has not been
demonstrated that a satisfactory
design can be achieved to enable a
mixed use development with
commercial development at the front
and housing to the rear. Until this has
been demonstrated, then it would be
inappropriate to allocate the site for
mixed use development.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
75
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
We object to the designation of Horwich Loco Works as a Target 1
(network expansion/development area). Given the constraints of the site
and the significant remediation that would be required together with
differing levels, it would seem intangible and inoperable, and
commercially and financially unviable, for the site to anchor a district
heating network.
Connor Vallelly
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
Horwich Vision Limited object to the designation of the former Horwich
Loco Works as a Target 1 (network expansion/development area). Given
the substantial constraints associated with the site and significant
remediation that would be required together with differing levels, HVL's
view is that a district heating network would not be in any way practicable
or viable on this site.
The former Loco Works site is identified in the draft Proposals Map as a
“Carbon Area”. This relates to adopted Core Strategy policy CG2 which
seeks to ensure sustainable development. The former Loco Works is
identified as a “Network Expansion Area” and the DPD goes on to state
that such locations have capacity to support district heating and cooling.
The DPD as drafted does not refer however to viability considerations
which is set out as a policy test preceding parts 2 and 3 of Core Strategy
Policy CG2. The viability of such projects is crucial to their deliverability
and we therefore suggest that the text is amended to make direct
reference to such projects being delivered where feasible/practicable and
viable. In any event Core Strategy policies CG1, M1 and M2 require the
regeneration of the Loco Works site to be sustainable.
The quantum of development identified
for delivery at the Loco Works is
sufficient in scale to feasibly support
the provision of a district heating
network in this location, and is
consistent with the principles laid out in
the AGMA Decentralised and Zero
Carbon Energy Planning Study. Within
the Core Strategy, policy CG2
references the need for the applicant
to demonstrate any issues with
feasibility or viability. To provide
improved clarity and flexibility on this
issue, the policy and proposals map
have been amended.
The quantum of development identified
for delivery at the Loco Works is
sufficient in scale to feasibly support
the provision of a district heating
network in this location, and is
consistent with the principles laid out in
the AGMA Decentralised and Zero
Carbon Energy Planning Study. Policy
CG2 references the need for the
applicant to demonstrate any issues
with feasibility or viability, therefore
there is no need for this to be
replicated in through policy wording in
the Allocations Plan. To provide
improved clarity and flexibility
regarding locations for the generation
of low and zero carbon energy
development, the policy approach and
proposals map have been amended.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
76
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Connor Vallelly
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
It is noted that the draft Proposals Map indicates part of the Loco Works
site as falling within Environment Agency Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3
which is in accordance with the published maps. An area of flood plain
has also been identified cutting across the western extent of the Loco
Works site. The Council will be aware that HVL have commissioned a
detailed flood risk assessment and site drainage strategy which will be
influenced by both existing topography and proposed ground
remodelling. This work will also establish in detail the extent of the
existing natural flood plain. This information will be provided to the
Council in due course and should be used to update the draft Proposals
Map.
Despite Green Belt, historic park status, SBI's etc. concern was
expressed about the future of Hulton Park Estate and questions were
raised about how safe this would be given that Cutacre was Green Belt
too. Worries were expressed about the power and influence Peel could
exert. There was a suggestion of the development of on opera house in
Hulton Park, a "Glyndebourne" of the north. It was stated that there is a
need to protect the Green Belt in the area as it is precious.
Comments are noted.
Hulton Area Forum
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
77
The National Planning Policy
Framework has recently been
published, and this retains protection
for Green Belt.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Damien
Holdstock
Amec on b/h of National
Grid
Kearsley Substation
National Grid’s Kearsley substation is located in the Kearsley area at the
south east of Bolton Council’s administrative area. A plan showing the
extent of National Grid’s landholdings at the substation (shown by the red
boundaries) is enclosed.
Part of the substation site is proposed to be designated as ‘Other
Protected Open Land’ in the Draft Allocations Plan. Policy CG5AP of the
Draft Allocations Plan states the following:
The Council will permit development proposals within the defined areas
of Protected Open Land shown on the Proposals Map, provided that they
fall within one or more of the following categories:
1. The development represents limited infilling within an established
housing or industrial area, is in scale with it and would not adversely
affect its character or surroundings;
2. It forms part of, and is required for, the maintenance of an existing
source of employment;
3. The development requires a location outside the urban area, but is
inappropriate within the Green Belt, and providing it maintains the
character and appearance of the countryside; or
4. The development would be appropriate within the Green Belt. Where
new buildings are permitted they should be sited to form a group with
existing buildings wherever possible. In cases where this is not possible,
buildings, car parking areas and any other new structures should be sited
where they will be well screened and unobtrusive in the landscape. All
buildings and extensions should be of a high standard of design, using
materials that are compatible with the landscape.
Substations are vital to the efficient operation of our electricity
transmission network for switching circuits or transforming voltage.
Kearsley substation is an essential part of the transmission network and
has an important role to play in maintaining the supply of electricity to the
local distribution network operator and therefore ultimately to homes and
businesses throughout Bolton and the wider area. Our landholdings at
the site are therefore "Operational Land" and, for the reasons outlined
above, there may need to be further essential utility development at the
site in the future.
National Grid does not wish to be restricted in carrying out any future
works required to meet its statutory duty to develop and maintain an
efficient, co-ordinated and economical transmission system of electricity.
As worded the policy could restrict National Grid from carrying out
necessary works within the part of the substation site covered by the
The policy for Other Protected Open
Land is identical to saved Unitary
Development Plan policy R2. This
policy is being taken forward into the
Allocations Plan, and the existing
wording is satisfactory and flexible
enough to make allowance for
permitted new structures provided they
are: "sited to form a group with existing
buildings wherever possible".
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
78
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
designation. Although National Grid does not have any plans to develop
the site further at this stage, there may be a need to expand or develop
the site in the future to meet operational needs. Should the need arise to
expand or develop the substation site, then National Grid would not wish
to be restricted in carrying out the work required.
Therefore the boundary for the designation should be re-drawn to
exclude all of the substation site (i.e. exclude the area shown by the red
boundaries on the attached plan), or clear provisions made in the policy
to allow future essential infrastructure developments at the site.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
79
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Comments are noted.
Business Enterprises Ltd
I wish to register my support for the retention, as Urban Open Space, the
Cricket Field and Bowling Green Sites adjoining the Horwich RMI Social
Club, Ramsbottom Rd and further as sites for recreational purposes only.
These sites are highly valued and used by all sections of the local
community throughout the year, from the very young to the elderly.
Further I would like to see, as a matter of urgency, the Council actively
supporting the community in achieving 'Village Green' Status for the
Cricket Field site by undertaking a consultation with interested parties in
the community to achieve this.
LAND AT BOWNESS ROAD, LITTLE LEVER (TIP SITE)
Trevor Leese
JP Donelon
Christine Morris
Bolton Council
Westhoughton Town
Council
We wish to make clear that Extant Tipping Rights exist on this Site of
some 11,000 cubic metres, which were agreed to be such by the Council
prior to their intended purchase of the Site in 1988.
Secondly, it is our advised opinion that an agreement to renounce the
aforementioned Tipping Rights would form a large part of “very special
circumstances” on this Green Belt Site, such as to justify either a very
limited ‘rounding off’ residential development at the end of Bowness
Road or, in the alternate, a ‘rounding off’ of the built environment from
the end of Bowness Road through to the neighbouring Council Estate
(making use of its access road). In either of these development
scenarios, a ‘neighbourhood watch’ situation would also be created from
the new properties overlooking the valley, offering the benefit of alerting
the Authorities to the long established and ongoing anti-social use of the
valley, as well as the adjoining land towards the Little Lever College.
This is something the existing houses can’t do due to their alignment vis
a vis the valley. These development possibilities have been discussed
with Planning Control as well as Planning Policy Officers, without
resolution as yet. Again, further and better particulars will be provided in
due course.
Westhoughton Town Council believes that the area of land at Chew Moor
Lane, bounded by Bolton Road, should not come up for an allocation as
building land, as the area is Green Belt land.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
80
Comments are noted.
This area is designated as Green Belt
on the Allocations Plan, and is not
identified for future development.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
JP Donelon
Business Enterprises Ltd
1. LAND OFF HALL LANE, LITTLE LEVER (CANAL ARM SITE)
Comments are noted.
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
We wish to state that the use of this site for Travellers accommodation is
no longer being pursued, due to changes in Government and thus Local
Authority Policies. However, alternative proposals are still under active
consideration and development. Further details of these to follow after
discussions with the Planning Officers shortly. For outline indicative
purposes at this stage, the options include a Green Belt compliant use
and also the further alternative of an ostensibly Green Belt inappropriate
use, but one which would substantially retain the openness of the Site
(and properly constituted space for community use) whilst meeting needs
in the health arena, together with Visitor Centre facilities for both local
people/stakeholders and the many Societies who use the site (to access
the Canal area and the Country Park) so uniquely suitable for such as to
constitute/demonstrate “very special circumstances” to allow its
implementation as well as the regeneration of this high profile, yet
patently neglected, potential community asset.
There was a query about the status of Lee Hall and worries about future
aspirations of developers there.
Richard Silvester
Graham Bee
Bolton Council
The Emerson Group
I would object to this area of land at Green Lane and Mary Street East
being allocated as a Ward Councillor. I have carried out a consultation
with local residents and every single reply I have received has been to
leave the land as it is, as open green space and as a recreational area.
The land has a covenant on it to protect it from development and for it to
be an green open space for the community.
I therefore believe that this land should be left as it presently is as a
green open space as it is an asset to the community and its loss would
be detrimental.
We object to the designation of Middlebrook as a Target 2 (electricity
intense area). The area that appears to be identified is entirely built out
already, so this Policy is clearly not applicable and should be removed.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
81
Although there has been considerable
pressure from developers in recent
years, the Lee Hall area is protected
through the policy approach set out in
the Core Strategy, and will remain as
Protected Open Land, as shown on
the Allocations Plan proposals map.
There is no site allocated for
development in this location. The
existing informal open space on Mary
Street East is too small to be carried
forward into the Allocations Plan which
uses a threshold of 0.4 hectares.
However it would remain protected
under Core Strategy policy CG1.
To provide improved clarity and
flexibility regarding locations for the
generation of low and zero carbon
energy development, the policy
approach and proposals map have
been amended.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Carol Greenhalgh
Ladybridge Residents
Association
Support is noted.
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Middlebrook Valley: Good to see this area maintained as a buffer to
development and wildlife corridor. Also further development of nature
conservation sites in this area
We object to the designation of employment commitment site 21P as a
target 2 (electricity intense area). This singles out a plot of land within
The Valley, which already has an extant planning permission for office
development, which has been the subject of a material start in June
2007. This designation is therefore clearly inappropriate.
I object to this area of public recreational open space at St. Leonards
Avenue (1) being allocated. Its loss would be detrimental to the local
community. This area of land is well used by local families and children
who enjoy the greenery of this land.
It is an amenity to the community and as a Ward Councillor I object to its
loss.
There is no site allocated for housing
on St Leonard's Avenue. The existing
informal open space on St. Leonard's
Avenue remains allocated as urban
open space and therefore protected
under Core Strategy policy CG1.
Richard Silvester
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
82
To provide improved clarity and
flexibility regarding locations for the
generation of low and zero carbon
energy development, the policy
approach and proposals map have
been amended.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Shirres
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
TC1 & TC2 St Helena
The Civic Trust Executive Committee Civic Trust have considered the
matter of green space within core area of the Town Centre and feel there
is very limited opportunity for anything in the foreseeable future.
However, the only significant exception to this is the River Croal which
runs from St Edmund Street to the rear of Victoria Hall, Knowsley Street.
Building Bolton was formally adopted
by Bolton Council as a Supplementary
Planning Document (SPD) on 10th
November 2006, and is still used to
inform planning applications for the
town centre. Core Strategy policy
CG4.2 would be used for the
protection of water quality and states:
"Development should not generate
unacceptable nuisance, odours,
fumes, noise or light pollution, nor
cause detrimental impacts upon water,
ground or air quality." The
Environment Agency provides advice
on development that affects main
rivers, and is also an advocate of deculverting watercourses to reinstate a
natural river where feasible.
In the case where previous planning permission for this area - which we
understand would have ecologically sterilised the area for decades to
come - actually lapses we urge that rehabilitation of this section of the
River Croal be given the greatest encouragement. The greening of
watercourse corridors are also very important for climate change
adaptation in order to mitigate for exacerbation of urban heat island
effects which will otherwise impact under climate change. The
importance of keeping open and ecologically enhancing this river axis to
the Town Centre is extremely relevant to Strategic Objectives 10, 11, 12
& 13.
Accordingly, the Allocations Plan should show clearly the river corridor
within the Town Centre, as did indeed your document the 2006 Building
Bolton: Investing in local distinctiveness.
Carol Greenhalgh
Bolton Council
Ladybridge Residents
Association
Please see also the general strategic point about the failure to highlight
the principal watercourse corridors across the Draft Bolton Allocations
Plan and the above argument may be relevant to similar sites across
Bolton which the author is not aware of but for which there may be
potential for deculverting - provided ecological network continuity is
highlighted.
Appreciate the commitment to preserve the separate identities of Heaton
and Deane by avoiding development in the Middlebrook valley. Also the
aim to conserve Deane village.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
83
Support is noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Policy CG5AP ‘Other Protected Open Land’ is a new Policy. In addition
to the permitted development proposals listed, a further permitted
category of development should be added as point 5 which should state
‘It is required as part of enabling works in connection with an allocated
site, provided no built development, other than infrastructure, is proposed
on the protected open land’.
Linda Challender
Horwich Town Council
There is concern about the loss of too much open space in Horwich. For
example, proposals for small amounts of development in areas like
Cedar Avenue would represent a major loss of amenity for local
residents and this needs to be taken into account.
The policy for Other Protected Open
Land is identical to saved Unitary
Development Plan policy R2. This
policy is being taken forward into the
Allocations Plan, and the existing
wording is satisfactory and flexible
enough to make allowance for
permitted new structures provided they
are: "sited to form a group with existing
buildings wherever possible".
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. The draft Allocations Plan
identifies some greenspace for
potential housing development to
implement Policy CG1.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
84
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Margaret Collier
Lostock Residents Group
The Lostock area is almost exclusively either Green Belt land or built-up
residential areas, most of which are low density and in principle protected
by Policy OA4, which undertakes to retain the low density of housing,
characteristic of Lostock.
Comments are noted.
It seems to us that, apart from one-for-one replacements, the Lostock
area is now fully developed, and compliance with the national policy
against garden grabbing, acknowledged in the Core Strategy, should
retain the wildlife habitat and corridors which are a feature of west
Bolton.
Unfortunately, Lostock has suffered from inadequate protection of its rich
abundance of mature trees, a benefit which neighbouring Heaton enjoys
by virtue of its Conservation Area status. This has left parts of Lostock
vulnerable to clearance of the trees and shrubs which provide a wildlife
corridor and habitat. The Civic Trust is encouraged by the Council’s
commitment to grant Conservation Area status to appropriate parts of
Lostock as soon as resources permit.
5.7 Flood risk
Lostock contains the Main Rivers, Bessybrook and Middlebrook,
tributaries of the Croal. There was severe flooding in the area in October
2000, and smaller events since. Any development in the catchment
areas needs to take cognisance of this. If the ‘garden grabbing’ policies
regarding footprint are adhered to, that would help.
5.10 Green Belt boundaries
We welcome the statement that Green Belt boundaries will not be
changed except around Cutacre, but observe two exceptions in Lostock,
see below.
If the Council is sincere about its determination to preserve the Green
Belt boundaries, it should rigorously police any development proposals to
ensure that they are sufficient only for the exemption under which
development is permitted. The restriction of their use to the permitted
one should then be monitored and enforcement taken against breaches
in a timely manner.
5.36 Control of development in the Green Belt
We are concerned at the procedure whereby an applicant can build,
using an exception to the strict restrictions on building in the Green Belt,
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
85
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
and then change the use. It has happened outside Lostock at the
Holland’s Nursery, where a Garden Centre, complete with a gift shop and
coffee shop is now operating on Green Belt land. Within Lostock, there
is an issue with the occupation of Green Belt land by Ladybridge Junior
Football Club.
Ladybridge Junior Football Club
There is an exception which allows a changing pavilion to be built in the
Green Belt for the use of sports players who use pitches in the Green
Belt. This has been taken advantage of at the edge of St John’s Wood in
Lostock. Inexplicably, permission was granted for a two storey brick-built
structure, which has been used for a variety of non-sporting uses. At the
time of writing an application is in place for an alcohol licence for these
premises, in the Green Belt, ostensibly for a JUNIOR football club.
Burnthwaite
We note that since Bolton’s Draft Allocation Plan went out for
consultation the Council has granted itself approval to put out to tender
the Green Belt site at Burnthwaite for the development of up to three
residential properties. This site, which adjoins a Site of Biological
Interest, was formerly occupied by a single large Victorian property, and
has now reverted to Green Belt status. As a result, any development
must be exceptional, and will require the approval of the Secretary of
State.
We are not convinced that the requirement of exceptional development
on this site can be satisfied by developing three properties there, as this
would require felling of protected trees.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
86
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Daly
Sport England
In relation to sites that include or constitute playing fields, Sport England
is a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting such sites
where the land has been used for playing fields at any time in the last 5
years (and remains undeveloped), or land which is identified for use as a
playing field in a development plan. Sport England also encourages
planning authorities to consult us on playing fields which have not been
used for more than five years which remain undeveloped, as such sites
remain a potential resource for sport and recreation.
Proposed development sites (as
identified in the Draft Allocations Plan)
that include playing fields are omitted
from the proposed publication version
of the Allocations Plan, unless a
revised playing pitch layout allows the
number of pitches to be retained.
The Playing Fields Assessment is
currently being revised.
Sport England has produced a policy which outlines our approach
towards the protection of playing fields entitled ‘A sporting future for the
playing fields of England’. In general Sport England will oppose the
granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to
the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field,
or land last used as a playing field in an adopted or emerging local
development framework, unless in the judgement of Sport England one
of the following 5 specific exceptions applies;
E1. A carefully quantified and documented assessment of current and
future needs has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Sport England that
there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, and the site
has no special significance to the interests of sport.
E2. The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site
as a playing field or playing fields, and does not affect the quantity or
quality of pitches or adversely affect their use.
E3. The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or
forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or
inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of
adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of
any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the
site.
E4. The playing field or playing fields which would be lost as a result of
the proposed development would be replaced by a playing field or
playing fields of an equivalent or better quality and of equivalent or
greater quantity, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better
management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the
development.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
87
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
E5. The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility,
the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of
sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field
or playing fields.
The above policy and exceptions are consistent with National planning
policy guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 ‘Planning
for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (PPG 17), in particular paragraph
15 which relates directly to proposals affecting playing fields.
In the case of sites identified in the Allocations paper that include playing
fields (or land last used as playing field which has not been developed)
Sport England would apply the policy above. Consequently, we would
look to oppose the allocation for development unless one of the
exceptions above were met. In the majority of cases this would require
exception E1 or E4 to be demonstrated.
In order to meet E1, an up to date playing pitch strategy that complies
with the Towards A Level Playing Field methodology is needed. Bolton’s
evidence base does not contain an up to date playing pitch strategy,
though (see section 3). In any case, it made no recommendations to
release playing fields for development. In the absence of a new /
updated playing pitch strategy exception E1 can not be satisfied.
In order to meet E4, replacement provision is needed. However, the
draft allocation plan makes no reference to a requirement for
replacement provision for any of the playing field sites allocated for other
uses.
In addition to the protection of playing fields, Sport England also seek to
protect other indoor and outdoor sports facilities and land uses which are
important in terms of sports development from loss or redevelopment.
Paragraph 10 of PPG 17 makes it clear that existing open space, sport
and recreational buildings should not be built upon unless a robust and
up-to-date assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown
the open space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements.
In terms of those other types of facilities/land that Sport England would
seek to protect this includes but is not limited to: -
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
88
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
o Indoor sports facilities e.g. sports halls, gyms, swimming pools, tennis
centres, athletics arenas etc.
o Outdoor facilities e.g. tennis courts, multi-use games areas, bowling
greens, athletic tracks, golf courses, bodies of water used for
watersports, mountain bike trails, equine facilities etc.
Paragraph 13 of PPG 17 recognises that development may provide the
opportunity to exchange the use of one site for another to substitute for
any loss of open space, sport or recreational facility.
Sport England would oppose any allocation that would result in the loss
or redevelopment of existing buildings and/or land used for sport unless it
is demonstrated that they are genuinely surplus to requirements or that
they would be replaced to an equivalent quantity and quality in a suitable
location in line with the requirements of PPG 17.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
89
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Daly
Sport England
The allocations plan designates selected sites for protection. Policy CG1
states that the Council and its partners will “Safeguard and enhance
parks, gardens, allotments, civic spaces, cemeteries and playing fields
and improve the quality and multi-functional benefits of these assets.”. A
range of sites are then identified on the proposals map. The allocations
document points out that recreational open space and green
infrastructure sites of 0.4 ha or more in size that should be protected are
shown on the map. However, a large number of playing field sites that
exceed the area threshold do not appear to be designated for
safeguarding by the policy. For example, playing fields associated with
schools do not appear to be designated on the proposals map (e.g.
Harper Green school in Farnworth, St James C of E School and Sports
college, Kearsley Academy etc.), nor do the playing fields adjacent to
Overdale Drive (Heaton) or the three playing fields adjacent to Tempest
Rd (Lostock). It is unclear why only some playing fields are designated
for safeguarding, and the implication is that those not identified on the
proposals map are not protected by the policy. 3.
The Evidence Base
The Draft Proposal Map does not show
recreational sites that are in the Green
Belt or on Protected Open Land, since
this would unnecessarily duplicate
protection from built development. Nor
does it show school playing fields.
This is the approach taken in the
Unitary Development Plan and it has
been successfully applied. However, it
is acknowledged that there is no policy
specifically on school playing fields, as
there was in the UDP. The inclusion of
such a policy would help to provide
clarification.
It is not accepted that the Open Space
Assessment is out of date. It was used
to justify policy CG1 in the adopted
Core Strategy, and the Allocations
Plan is a means of implementing the
adopted policy.
Sport England does not seek to impose a blanket restriction on the
development or allocation of playing field sites or other sites used for
sport and recreation if it can be demonstrated that the sites are surplus to
need both now and in the future, and are not of special value to sport. In
order to demonstrate this, a robust evidence base including a PPG17
compliant open space, sport and recreation audit / assessment of needs
and a playing pitch strategy is required. Bolton’s evidence base includes
an open Space study from 2007, and this includes findings from a
playing pitch assessment / strategy. There are a number of significant
weaknesses in relation to this study from our perspective, though.
Firstly the scope of the study does not meet the requirements of PPG17.
Paragraph 2 of PPG17 states that “As a minimum, assessments of need
should cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for open
space and built sports and recreational facilities”. The Annex to PPG 17
further states that “5. For the purposes of assessments of need and
audits of existing built facilities for sport and recreation, local authorities
should use a typology which includes swimming pools, indoor sports
halls and leisure centres, indoor bowls centres, indoor tennis centres, ice
rinks, community centres, and village halls.”. However, Bolton’s open
space study does not include built facilities such as swimming pools,
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
90
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
indoor sports halls etc. In term of the allocations document, this would
become an issue if the allocations DPD proposes to allocate such
facilities for development.
Bolton’s open space study also incorporates an update of a 2003 playing
pitch assessment. Although the open space study was published in
2007, the date of the playing pitch assessment update and the period the
data related to is not clear. Sport England’s position is that playing pitch
assessments / strategies that are more than 3 years old are out of date.
Towards A Level Playing Field (the recommended methodology for
producing playing pitch strategies) emphasises the importance of
keeping the data underpinning a playing pitch assessment up to date and
states that data should, as a minimum, be updated every two years.
Even assuming the playing pitch assessment and data related to 2007, it
would now be regarded as out of date.
A fit for purpose assessment framework for playing pitch strategies has
now been produced by Sport England (see link below). In the case of
Bolton’s study, however, the pre-assessment checks would categorise
Bolton’s playing pitch assessment / strategy as not being fit for purpose
as it is more than three years old.
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/playing_field/playing_pit
ch_strategy.aspx
From discussions with Sport England colleagues, I understand that
Bolton is considering commissioning or undertaking a new playing pitch
strategy. In light of this intention, I would like to make you aware that
Sport England has developed a number of panels (comprising of
consultants) to support its work in relation to Strategic Planning for Sport.
One of these panels relates to the production of playing pitch strategies,
and one relates to PPG17 assessments. Panel members have been
chosen in relation to their skills, experience, knowledge, price and quality
of their work in the relevant areas. Sport England is allowing other
partners to have access to its panels without going through the OJEU
(Official Journal of the European Union) process. Eligible partner
organisations include Local Authorities
To access the panels, external partners first need to sign a letter of
agreement with Sport England before details of the panels (including
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
91
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
rates) can be released. External partners should consult their
legal/procurement departments before applying to use the panels.
Partners will need to put in place their own contracts with Panel
members, and these should follow the Framework contract already in
place between Sport England and the preferred supplier.
An added advantage of using the panel members is that the Towards a
Level Playing Field methodology for producing playing pitch strategies is
being revised. The consultancies on the panel are involved in this
revision process and will be able to implement the new methodology
once it is finalised.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
92
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Stephen Hedley
Natural England
Natural England are unable to comment in detail on all sites proposed for
development. However, we ask that our interests be fully considered in
the process of selecting and assessing sites for development and in
protecting sites from development in the Local Development Framework.
These interests include biodiversity and protected species, geodiversity,
landscape character and quality, greenspace, access to the countryside
and other greenspace, soil conservation, sustainable design and
construction and environmental land management. We would also wish
to see proposals or plans which show both adaptation to and reduction in
the contribution to climate change.
Sites coming forward for development should be informed, of course, by
the Habitat Regulations Assessment and robust assessment and
collection of data on the natural environment within the Sustainability
Appraisal.
In relation to Site Allocations, or other site specific documents, we
particularly advise that councils should consider the implications of
allocations on specific assets including:
· Natura 2000 network sites
· National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage
Coasts
· Sites of Special Scientific Interest
· Protected Species
· Regionally Important Geological Sites
· Coherent, wider biodiversity and habitat networks, particularly in respect
to the adaptation by species to climate change.
· Natural processes and systems, particularly coastal, flooding and
surface water drainage.
· National Trails and important recreational assets.
As part of the consultation process,
Natural England has been contacted
on the sites for inclusion within the
emerging Allocations Plan, all of which
has been subject to Sustainability
Appraisal.
In choosing and proposing sites, we would specifically like the following
to be taken into account:
· Ecological research - potential sites should be accompanied by
appropriate ecological surveys where there is a likelihood of protected or
priority species and habitats being present.
· Appropriate consideration should be given to landscape impacts,
including an assessment of the impact on landscape character and
quality.
· Consideration of the importance of agricultural land and our soil
resources is also fundamental to the site selection process. Where
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
93
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
significant development of agricultural land is unavoidable poorer quality
land should be used in preference to that of higher quality, except where
this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.
· The planning authority should seek to maximise brownfield sites
provided there is no detrimental effect on biodiversity and the character
of the existing settlement. Paragraph 13 of PPS9 points out the
importance of retaining biodiversity interest on previously developed
land. The Council should, therefore, ensure that valuable habitats and
species found on brownfield sites are not lost through development. This
can be achieved by reviewing ecological information on brownfield sites
to check on the likelihood of the presence of protected or BAP species
and habitats and considering appropriate means of ensuring such
interest is retained through site specific policies or other policies in the
LDF.
· There should be no detrimental effect on the right of way network.
· Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and the physical and ecological
characteristics of each site - to ascertain features that should be retained
and/or improved for biodiversity, e.g. water bodies, woodland,
hedgerows.
· There should be an assessment of the importance of green space
within and outside of settlements. In addition networks between open
spaces should be considered to ensure links are not lost by new
development. The aim should be to protect areas of green space from
future development and where possible provide net gains in Green
Infrastructure (GI). GI provides multiple functions, such as improving
health and wellbeing as well as strengthening biodiversity. PPS9
(Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) advises that networks should
be maintained and strengthened where possible; “Networks of natural
habitats provide a valuable resource. They can link sites of biodiversity
importance and provide routes or stepping stones for the migration,
dispersal and genetic exchange of species in the wider environment.
Local authorities should aim to maintain networks by avoiding or
repairing the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats through
policies in plans. Such networks should be protected from development,
and, where possible, strengthened by or integrated within it.” (PPS9,
Para 12).
A network of well designed and managed greenspace and links can
make a significant contribution to creating a distinctive identity and sense
of place. Access to open space and its connectivity to the wider
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
94
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
environment are extremely important. Natural England's Accessible
Natural Greenspace Standards (ANGSt) of course establish a standard
for greenspace, how accessible green space is and whether existing
areas could be enhanced to improve accessibility. More information and
guidance on how to make green space more accessible and natural can
be found in Nature Nearby - Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance
(Natural England 2010). Furthermore more principles of embedding
Green Infrastructure and biodiversity can be found in the following
documents:
- Green Infrastructure by design –adding value to development
- Biodiversity by design
The allocations should meet the environmental criteria and other broad
principles established within the Core Strategy, and of course any sites
which would have significantly adverse environmental effects should not
be included.
For nationally designated areas and sites it is incumbent on the planning
authority to apply the policy of PPS7 and PPS9, to protect and enhance
such sites. For other environmental and recreational assets, it will be
important to examine whether the proposals recognise potential
environmental harm or possible degradation of outdoor recreation
assets. In doing so the authority should examine whether the LDF sets
out criteria for development which would serve to avoid such harm.
Where development is proposed, the council should ensure that
expectations for Green Infrastructure, landscape, habitat value and
biodiversity adaptation to climate change are embedded within the
planning of the development.
In respect of internationally designated nature conservation sites the
planning authority are obliged of course to consider the impacts of the
plan against the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, and we comment
on this later in this letter.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
95
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Stephen Hedley
Natural England
Comments are noted.
Stephen Hedley
Natural England
Biodiversity and Geodiversity
We very much welcome that the Proposals Map is to show Sites of
Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Biological Importance and Local
Nature Reserves, and we welcome also that proposed new Local Nature
Reserves are to be shown on the revised Proposals Map.
Landscape Character Areas
We welcome amongst other things the landscape character areas being
shown on the Proposals Map.
Recreational Local Space
We support recreational open space being identified on the Proposals
Map.
We note that some areas of open space, recreational areas and green
infrastructure are afforded protection under Core Strategy Policy CG1.
However, in accordance with our comments on the Core Strategy, we
restate our view that we are concerned about the intention to "allow
some development on informal green space in the urban area provided it
allows for the improvement of remaining green space and helps to meet
the strategic objectives for housing". As we previously stated, informal
open areas can have considerable value in providing multiple benefits for
health, recreation, biodiversity and climate change adaptation, and being
a resource for education, amongst other things. These benefits should be
carefully considered in all cases. The aim should be to retain and
improve existing open space and a compelling argument would be
needed to justify a loss.
A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening is needed in
relation to the Allocations Plan, the Proposals Map and Written
Statement. We have recently received a copy of a letter from the Greater
Manchester Ecological Unit relating to the Allocations Plan but have not
seen the recent assessment on which the GMEU‟s conclusions are
based. Having received this letter only this week, as agreed with you we
will write separately on the Habitats Regulations.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
96
Comments are noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Support is noted.
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Potential Local Nature Reserves Policy CG1
I note and welcome the identification of a number of sites as potential
Local Nature Reserves. As this designation is principally for biodiversity
and public access the targeting of Sites of Biological Importance will be
considered very favourably. GMEU supports the designation of all the
sites identified under Policy CG1 and in particular;
Brownstones Quarry – Brownstone Quarry SBI
Upper Bradshaw Valley – encompassing parts of Bradshaw Wood &
Reservoirs SBI and Castlecroft & Bradshaw Brook SBI
Eagley Valley – encompassing parts of Bank Top SBI
Bradford/Leverhulme/Tonge – including Leverhulme Park SBI
Deane/Middle Brook – encompassing a very small part of Bank Wood &
Marsh SBI but adjacent to Lostock Golf Course SBI and Middle Brook
Sidings & Marsh SBI in this important green corridor.
Hall Lee Brook – adjacent to Hall Lee Bank Park SBI
Green Infrastructure/ Green Corridors and allocations under SC1
It is recognised within the Sustainability Appraisals that a considerable
number of allocations are proposed on areas of open land. It is also
acknowledged that this will impact variously upon either green
infrastructure and/or wildlife resources. The Appraisal acknowledges that
there is scope for incorporation of biodiversity within the landscaping
proposals for schemes or in the construction of green roofs etc. It is not
clear whether the Sustainability SPD is still relevant to this area and
perhaps cross reference to this document may be helpful.
In addition, it is important to recognise that when such allocations are
implemented that any areas of open space are likely to be limited and
that multifunctional objectives will also be required. Consideration should
be given in these cases to the provision where possible to improvements
off-site on adjacent areas in order to facilitate linkages and connectivity
between biodiversity resources. This type of approach where on–site
mitigation is not necessary/required is in line with current government
policy on green infrastructure (Lawton Review & White Paper – The
Natural Choice) and the emerging National Planning Policy Framework.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
97
Comments are noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Infill development in the Green Belt CG9AP
It is noted that a number of these allocation abut SBIs and careful
consideration of buffer zones and boundary treatments will be required
should development on these sites come forward. The sites include;
Deakins Business Park
Firwood Works
Smithills School
Comments are noted.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
98
Name
Barry Jubb
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
In a year when Bolton Council designates 2012 a “Year of Sport” I cannot
support or understand why the Draft Allocations Plan contains any
proposals to develop for Housing, “Open Recreation Space” or
“Greenspace” whether its present use is formal or informal use. Not one
blade of grass should come under threat when there is so much local
and national legislation on statute protecting such area’s from unwanted
development, no matter who owns them.
Legislation such as “Planning Policy Guidance 17” (PPG17) which has
been used recently by Bolton MBC Planning Dept., in conjunction with
Sport England and Lostock Sports Club, to protect “Open Recreation
Space” at the Old British Aerospace site, is an example. (Have Sport
England been consulted as Statutory Consultee on the playing field
content of the Allocation Plan?)
And I must remind you that most of Bolton MBC’s planning policies
pertaining to “Open Recreation Space” or “Greenspace” are almost
verbatim of PPG17, so just how it would be proposed to subvert this
legislation legally I do not know?
I would also like to know how these proposals match up to the aims and
aspirations of the old “Six Acre Standard” now renamed “Planning and
Design for Outdoor Sport and Play”, especially when the original Bolton
UDP stated that Bolton fell well short of meeting this standard and that
Bolton was classed has a deprived area against this Standard.
Finally I must point out your own notes contained in the Draft Allocation
Plan and ask how can it be justified to develop “Open Recreation Space”
or “Greenspace” when Knight, Kavanagh & Page on behalf of Bolton
Council carried out an “OPEN SPACE, SPORT & RECREATION
STUDY”, Which concluded that there was scope for “Team Generation”
in every Outdoor Sport played within Bolton but no facilities to do so?
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. The draft Allocations Plan
identifies some greenspace for
potential housing development to
implement Policy CG1.
Key negative effects
7.7 There are some allocations proposed on sites of recreational open
space and playing fields. Overall these sites do not score highly in the
sustainability appraisal for health and wellbeing, neighbourhood quality
and green infrastructure. This is due to the loss of recreational green
space, reducing opportunities for exercise. Availability and proximity to
green spaces has one of the biggest impacts on increasing physical
activity levels. Green spaces are essential to provide green lungs and
help to mitigate air pollution and associated respiratory diseases.
Reduction in urban green spaces and trees could result in a loss of
biodiversity and key recreation areas.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
99
Name
Ann Kolodziejski
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Policy CG1 encompasses many different aspects, many of which I
support but there are some omissions that I would like to point out:
Bolton has very limited quantities of
grade 3 agricultural land, and this is
located within the Green Belt. Access
to fresh food, and safeguarding areas
such as allotments are covered
through objectives and policies within
the Core Strategy.
In particular, I would like to draw attention to the policy in terms of
Biodiversity & Geodiversity. It is good to see that additional LNRs are to
be created but I would like to point out that conservation and promotion
of biodiversity takes place beyond identified nature reserves and that
policies need to acknowledge it in other policies such as housing,
employment and infrastructure (and not only protected species). If too
narrow a view of biodiversity is adopted, it will lead to the continued loss
of habitat features. Biodiversity needs to be flagged up and promoted in
most developments and opportunities taken to inform and support those
developing in Bolton. The Bolton Biodiversity Action plan, which was
adopted as supplementary planning guidance in the UDP, is not
mentioned in the allocations plan so needs to be incorporated
somewhere within it.
Allied to this are the comments around open space and green
infrastructure. Enhancing the towns green infrastructure is an essential
means of mitigating and adapting to climate change locally so the role of
street trees and the adoption of sustainable urban drainage systems as
well as bringing degraded peat bogs back into a functioning state as
carbon sinks need to be incorporated into the plans.
There is hardly any mention of agriculture and food growing in the
document. As the cost of importing food is set to increase in the future
owing to soaring fuel prices, the council should identify new areas in the
borough where food growing can take place and to protect potential food
growing sites from development.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
100
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Boyd Lee
Transition Town Bolton
Whilst Transition Town Bolton don't object to affordable housing we do
object to building on playing fields, open space, farmland, and greenfield
sites listed above that may be required for growing food should oil price
rises affect the most vulnerable in the town. We think it's prudent to hold
back. Many green sites might also prove useful areas for education, in
particular enhancing the residents understanding of how easy it is to get
in involved in providing your own food, fruit, fuels and many other
remedies & herbs over the year. That's excluding the many health
benefits & exercise that can be gained from working outdoors across the
Borough over the seasons and with other food and nature groups such
as the Wildlife Trust, Community Allotments, School Growing Projects
that engage the future generations, Community coppicing groups where
residents responsibly manage woodland and get back useful wood for
use as fuels to use over the summer in bread ovens etc. For those that
understand food security this is what is missing deeply within the thinking
and Public Relations smog that drifts out of centralised policy
documentation and television blurb. This is proving very useful up in
Lancaster and Preston with the Lancashire Wildlife Trust & Transition
South Ribble up there getting involved, training people and actively
managing a variety of new and ancient woodlands so there are huge
opportunities to do something useful with all of the land that does not
have concrete on it. The fact that they are already playing fields and
farmland and that they have been identified as housing land with no one
visiting is however beyond comprehension.
The Core Strategy is the vision for
what Bolton should look like in the
future up to 2026 and contains policies
to deliver this, including the following
policies which look to safeguard urban
land which may be useful for growing
food and providing a habitat for
biodiversity. Core Strategy Policy
CG1.2 states: "Safeguard and
enhance biodiversity in the borough by
protecting sites of urban biodiversity
including trees, woodland and
hedgerows from adverse development,
and improving the quality and
interconnectivity of wildlife corridors
and habitats"
Core Strategy Policy CG1.3 states:
"Safeguard and enhance parks,
gardens, allotments, civic spaces,
cemeteries and playing fields and
improve the quality and multi-functional
benefits of these assets."
The Allocations Plan describes how
the Core Strategy will be implemented
on a Proposals Map for the Borough,
and must be in conformity with the
Core Strategy. Although some green
field sites are identified on the
Proposals map for development, the
overall strategy is to prioritise the
regeneration of brown field land first.
This reflects the National Planning
Policy Framework core planning
principle of reusing land that has been
previously developed.
Another rising tide to look out for are Food Forests that are becoming
wide spread and are designed to provide a dense area of free fruits,
food, remedies and other habitat for birds & bees that make small areas
far more productive than an acre of arable land making it more beneficial
than leaving land unproductive or by building on it no matter what and
then expecting food to travel 2000 diesel miles to it. Some experts like
Martin Crawford estimates that you can feed more people per acre from
a food forest gardening than putting all you eggs in one basket such as
modern agriculture, infact some people say modern agriculture is simply
the practice of turning oil into food. As the wonderful BBC Farm for The
Future documentary points out, the whole of the UK needs to really think
over it's food culture and see local food culture as a top priority.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
101
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
I am objecting to the designation of sites that are located within wildlife
corridors for housing. The Borough has several valley bottoms that
constitute wildlife corridors including those of the Rivers Tonge, Croal
and Irwell, Bradshaw Brook, Blackshaw Brook, Eagley Brook, Dean
Brook. Middlebrook and Will Hey Brook. These should all be protected
for their biodiversity and recreational value.
The proposals map will be amended to
indicate green corridors. On sites that
may be developed along the line of an
existing green corridor, the
incorporation of careful soft
landscaping and planting of native
species will be required to improve
biodiversity, provide wildlife runs that
counteract fragmentation through the
built/natural environment, and also to
strengthen links with green corridors in
adjoining areas.
Much of the open space around the
borough is designated as Green Belt,
which allows it greater protection than
if it were designated as Protected
Open Land.
Core Strategy policy CG2 says the Council will safeguard and enhance
biodiversity ... by ... improving the quality and interconnectivity of wildlife
corridors and habitats. Building houses in wildlife corridors will not
achieve this. A policy to improve the quality of wildlife corridors cannot be
carried out if the Council have no plan to do so.
It would have been desirable if the Core Strategy had allowed for
Protected Open Space to be extended to include all open space in valley
bottoms and other linear features but even so policy CG2 should exclude
any development in these locations. A policy that is not implemented is
meaningless.
Funding for the improvement of wildlife corridors can only be applied for,
when it becomes available, if wildlife corridors have already been
identified, and safeguarded, and draft plans for their improvement have
been made.
Bolton Friends of the Earth believe that extending and improving Bolton's
Green Infrastructure would improve the physical and mental health of
Bolton's citizens, make it a more attractive location for investment and
help to fulfil our moral duty to respect the other life with which we share
our planet.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
102
Name
David Sherratt
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
General notes:
PPS12 - Infrastructure
The core strategy should be supported by evidence of what physical,
social and green infrastructure is needed to enable the amount of
development proposed for the area, taking account of its type and
distribution.
This evidence should cover who will provide the infrastructure and when
it will be provided. The core strategy should draw on and in parallel
influence any strategies and investment plans of the local authority and
other organisations.
[Reason: Satisfactory and sustainable development]
As part of the infrastructure planning
work required to support the delivery of
the Core Strategy, an Infrastructure
Delivery Plan has been published by
the Council. Furthermore, the Council
regularly liaises with United Utilities
and shares information on
development trajectories, including
SHLAA data.
Infrastructure
To preserve the quality of life for the existing community and to prevent
environmental damage; developments should not be permitted until
infrastructure capacity is available.
United Utilities PLC cannot confirm if capacity is available until the
connection point/s, flows and completion dates are confirmed, therefore
the LPA should work closely with United Utilities PLC and other utility
providers to ensure funding and infrastructure plans are secured with
their Regulators before granting planning approval; failure may result in
the deterioration of the community's quality of life and/or environmental
damage.
The scale and type of development needs to be defined so the
appropriate infrastructure is in place to ensure growth is sustainable.
United Utilities PLC has a number of recent examples where
infrastructure has been provided based on identified growth, but not
delivered; this has resulted in major operational issues; the treatment
process is under loaded; it is failing to operate because it cannot reach
its operational capacity.
Additional temporary engineer solutions are in place; this represents a
significant risk to the exiting customers; the environment and United
Utilities PLC; not forgetting the additional financial burden on United
Utilities PLC’s customers.
The Council has a number of capacity issues; any additional
developments in these and/or adjoining areas without firstly ensuring
funding and infrastructure plans are implemented could result in an
increased number and frequency of sewer flooding incidents.
[Reason: Ensure timely delivery of development and infrastructure to
protect the good quality of life and the environment]
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
103
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Responding Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment [SHLAA]
Responding to an individual site identified in a SHLAA will not give a true
reflection on impact on the existing infrastructure or provide a clear
investment plan for the future.
A single plot will not be constructed, a number of plots will and therefore
numerous build scenarios can be created from the list of sites identified
in a SHLAA.
What if:
Plots A, B, C and Z are constructed
Or
Plots B; C; D; Y and Z are constructed.
United Utilities PLC can not provide a true impact assessment on the
development plots identified in your SHLAA, United Utilities PLC would
prefer to meet a member of your team to discuss this in further detail.
[Reason: To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place
until proper provision has been made for their disposal and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
Water Resources Planning
Our Water Resources Management Plan published in 2009, sets out our
strategy for water resources management for the next twenty-five years
and highlights areas where there is likely to be a supply deficit and what
activities will be put in place to mitigate any shortfall in supply.
The plan can be accessed here:
http://www.unitedutilities.com/WaterResourcesPlan.aspx.
We would encourage all developers and planners to contact United
Utilities PLC at the earliest opportunity to enable identification of points of
connection with least cost to the developer.
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
Increased Water Capacity
The developer is required to pay for their increased capacity (up to the
point of a treatment works) and they are only allowed to connect at
specific points identified by United Utilities PLC and following approval to
connect.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
104
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Planners and Developer should obtain local capacity information from the
United Utilities PLC Area Teams\Connections who would be able to
identify areas where there is current capacity for development; this would
be on a case by case basis and developers are required to pay a fee for
this service (a pre development enquiry).
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
General Water Efficiency Guidance
United Utilities encourages the use of water efficient designs and
development wherever this is possible. There are a number of actions
developers can undertake to ensure that their developments are water
efficient. The most up to date advice for water efficiency and water
efficiency products can be found at Waterwise who have recently
published a best practise guide on water efficiency for new
developments. We would encourage utilisation of the following water
efficiency activities:
Installing of the latest water efficient products, such as a 4.5l flush toilet
instead of the 6l type.
Minimise run lengths of hot and cold water pipes from storage to
tap/shower areas. This minimises the amount of waste during the time
the water goes from cold to hot.
Utilising drought resistant varieties of trees, plants and grasses when
landscaping.
Install water efficient appliances such as dishwashers, washing
machines.
[Reason: To maintain the public water supply and to provide
satisfactory/sustainable development]
Carbon impact
LPA and developers should consider to the total carbon impact of future
developments; not only the footprint of the development but also the
carbon impact for additional infrastructure assets; their associated
treatment processes and their future maintenance and operation
requirements. To meet future reduction targets LPA and Developers
should considered the wider carbon impact when determining the
location of future developments.
[Reason: Satisfactory and sustainable development]
Surface Water
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
105
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
The treatment and processing of surface water [storm water; rainwater] is
a not a sustainable solution; the sites’ current natural discharge solution
should be continued and/or mimicked; if the existing surface water does
not have an existing natural solution, United Utilities PLC questions the
development of a flooded site.
Surfacewater should be managed at source and not transferred; if not
this only transfers the issue to another location; generally to a single
pinch point, generating further problems in that location.
Developments must drain on a separate sewerage system, with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewerage network.
Every option should be investigate before discharging surface water into
a public sewerage network.
Connecting surface water to the public sewerage network is not a
sustainable solution and LPA should discourage this practice.
The priority options for the management of surface water discharges are:
Continue and/or mimic the site’s current natural discharge process
Store for later use
Discharge into infiltration systems located in porous sub soils
Attenuate flows into green engineering solutions such as ponds; swales
or other open water features for gradual release to a watercourse and/or
porous sub soils
Attenuate by storing in tanks or sealed systems for gradual release to a
watercourse
Direct discharge to a watercourse
Direct discharge to a surface water sewer
Controlled discharge into the combined sewerage network ~ this option
is a last resort when all other options have been discounted.
Development on greenfield sites shall not discharge surface water into
the public combined sewerage network and shall not increase the rate of
run-off into the public surface water network ~ this statement does not
replace the priority options for surface water management above.
On previously developed land, a reduction of at least 30% will be sought,
rising to a minimum of 50% in critical drainage areas ~ this statement does
not replace the priority options for surface water management above
Any discharge to the public sewerage system must be via approved
SUDS and will require an approved discharge rate.
Consideration should given for green infrastructure, low carbon, soft
engineering SUDS solutions, such as ponds; swales; wet land areas and
detention basins etc.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
106
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
A discharge to groundwater or watercourse may require the consent of
the Environment Agency.
[Reason: To ensure that the surface water is properly discharged to
prevent flooding or the overloading of the public sewerage network]
Development adjacent to infrastructure assets
The future expansion of infrastructure assets to meet the needs of future
development and changes in legalisation could create a potential conflict
with development plans, this may result in £Millions of customers money
being spent in building a new infrastructure outside the locality; therefore
developments adjacent to United Utilities PLC assets should be
discouraged by LPA
Water and sewerage companies have a legal right of access to their
assets; this can be for their operational and/or maintenance therefore
United Utilities PLC will not permit the building over and/or near its
infrastructure assets.
By their nature, wastewater processes generate odour levels, which the
public may deem to be unacceptable; in addition, the filter processes
attract flies.
To avoid any conflict historically these facilities have been sited away
from the general population.
To protect the public from these by-products United Utilities PLC would
ask that the Environmental Health Authority be consulted in any future
developments adjacent to wastewater infrastructure assets. In most
cases, the distance of 400 metres from the WWTW is used as a guide,
but this can differ due to local topography, climatic conditions, size and
nature of the wastewater infrastructure asset and development in
question.
The Council must ensure United Utilities PLC is kept informed of any
waste management related development and/or planning application
within 500m of a Large Diameter Trunk Main (LDTM). Prior consent will
be required from United Utilities PLC before granting approval. It is also
essential that this information is included in future planning policy
United Utilities PLC would seek the support of LPA in the LDF and
planning application processes to protect/secure land for infrastructure
use. Failure could mean United Utilities PLC cannot provide the
additional capacity required to support your growth plans therefore a
failed and/or unsound development plan.
[Reason: To protect existing and future infrastructure and maintain
service]
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
107
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Infill land
You should be aware that, on occasion, gaps are left between properties;
this is due to the presence of underground utility assets. United Utilities
PLC will not allow the building over or near to these assets and
development will not be acceptable in these locations.
[Reason: In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair
work at all times]
Climate change adaptation
Planners and Developers should consider that the impacts of climate
change on future development, existing infrastructures and the
environment.
Developments to be designed to reduce the impacts of climatic change
on the development itself, the existing infrastructure and the
environment; with consideration for hotter, drier summers, greater flood
risk and more severe weather events.
To reduce the impacts of climate change on the existing infrastructure LA
Planners should seek a significant reduction in the discharge from
developments.
Paving over front gardens has potential contribution to flood risk and
should be discouraged.
[Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained; prevents
flooding and environmental damage]
Green Infrastructure
The Council should seek opportunities to use developer contributions
and/or resources to meet common objectives.
Use green and open spaces, sports and recreation facilities to address
surfacewater and climate change issues.
Building green infrastructure assets such as ponds, swales and wetlands
will not only meet the Council’s Green Space needs but also their local
existing and/or future surface water/ climate change issues.
Artificial pitches; cycle paths; play areas multi-use games areas and
skate parks can be used to local underground civil engineering SUDS
solutions.
SUDS solutions that incorporate irrigation systems will help support and
maintain the Council’s allotments, parks and garden areas.
The Council’s should identify opportunities for the installation retro fitting
SUDS.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
108
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
[Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable, properly
drained; prevents flooding and environmental damage]
Windfall Sites
Windfall sites siphon investment and resources away from defined
development plans; sabotaging infrastructure investment identified to
address specific water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
For LPA this could greatly impact their development plans to address
areas of deprivation; poor housing; high unemployment; education and
health care issues.
A single development site [windfall] must not impair and/or sabotage the
time; resources; infrastructure investment and partnerships developed to
support the future growth of a LPA and/or number of LPAs.
[Reason: Protect investment, well being of the community and deliver
sustainable development]
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
109
Council response
Name
Organisation
Mark Sims
Brian Tetlow
Bolton & District Civic
Society
Brian Tetlow
Bolton & District Civic
Society
Bolton Council
Comment Summary
Council response
Our objections concern:
The proposals to change Green Belt Boundaries.
The loss of designated Green Belt land.
The use of Green Field sites for commercial or industrial ventures.
The use of any farmland for purposes other than agricultural or related
activities.
The Core Strategy is the vision for
what Bolton should look like in the
future up to 2026 and contains policies
to deliver this. The Allocations Plan
describes how the Core Strategy will
be implemented on a Proposals Map
for the Borough, and must be in
conformity with the Core Strategy. The
principle of Green Belt release in the
Cutacre area has already been
established through the Core Strategy;
the Proposals Map provides a
boundary for the extent of this.
Although some green field sites,
including limited quantities of farm
land, are identified on the Proposals
map for development, the overall
strategy is to prioritise the regeneration
of brown field land first. This reflects
the National Planning Policy
Framework core planning principle of
reusing land that has been previously
developed. The small quantity of the
best agricultural land (grade 3a) within
the borough is being protected from
development.
Comments are noted.
Our interpretation of the proposals is that it indicates a sensitivity towards
the Greenbelt and land that should remain undeveloped. This is a
welcome contrast to the Government's alarming National Planning Policy
Framework, which has understandably been met with consternation by
various august bodies.
We are concerned that there should be protection for our rivers and
numerous water courses in addition to the prohibition of any
development within five metres of a watercourse.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
110
The protection of water quality is
addressed through Core Strategy
policy CG4, and the protection of
biodiversity through Core Strategy
CG1.
Name
Organisation
Vicky Urmston
Comment Summary
Council response
There has been a lack of real consultation regarding building on green
space, especially in Horwich. Many people living next to these areas
have no idea about this consultation and could have been told by letter
that they have an opportunity to express there opinion.
This is the draft stage of the
Allocations Plan, and the council has
followed due procedure in consulting
appropriate parties on the contents of
the plan. Comments made at this
stage are being into account and
reflected within changes to the
Allocations Plan, prior to undergoing a
formal stage of consultation and
independent examination.
As traffic levels increase more green space should be available to help
mitigate the effects of climate change, in Bolton the opposite is
happening with total disregard for future wellbeing both for health and the
planet.
Connor Vallelly
Bolton Council
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
People of Bolton have a right to their Green Spaces.
Draft Policy CG5AP sets out a number of criteria for development within
areas of other protected open land. In addition to the permitted
development proposals listed, a further permitted category of
development should be added at point 5 which should state:
“5. It is required as part of enabling works in connection with an allocated
site, provided no built development, other than essential infrastructure, is
proposed on the protected open land.”
Little Lever and Darcy
Lever Area Forum
How much thought has gone into offsetting the carbon footprint of the
proposed development?
Two Towns Area Forum
There is a lack of Green Corridors/ecological networks on the map.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
111
The policy for Other Protected Open
Land is identical to saved Unitary
Development Plan policy R2. This
policy is being taken forward into the
Allocations Plan, and the existing
wording is satisfactory and flexible
enough to make allowance for
permitted new structures provided they
are: "sited to form a group with existing
buildings wherever possible".
Core Strategy policy CG2 deals with
the topic of Sustainable Design and
Construction, and requires the
incorporation of decentralised,
renewable and low carbon energy
sources to reduce CO2 emissions from
new developments over a given
size/threshold. The Allocations Plan
Proposals Map provides a spatial
context for this Core Strategy policy
and indicates areas where different
types of low and zero carbon
technologies could be utilised to
achieve further reductions in the CO2
emissions from development, for
example through the use of district
heating networks.
The Allocations Plan proposals map
will be amended to indicate green
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
corridors.
Bolton Council
Two Towns Area Forum
What are the energy possibilities at Middlebrook?
Two Towns Area Forum
What possibilities are there for wind turbines?
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Does brownfield land include old mining sites?
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Could the government put new laws into practice to be able to change
those areas currently designated as Green Belt?
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Can we be sure that development won't encroach onto the Green Belt?
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
112
Through policy CG1, the Core Strategy
seeks to maximise the potential for
renewable energy development,
minimise energy requirements and
improve energy efficiency. To provide
improved clarity and flexibility
regarding locations for the generation
of low and zero carbon energy
development, the policy approach and
proposals map have been amended.
The Core Strategy seeks to maximise
the potential for renewable energy
development (policy CG1), however
any proposals for wind turbines would
have to comply with other local and
national policies.
Land that has been developed for
minerals extraction but where provision
for restoration has been made through
development control procedures is not
classified as previously developed land
(brown field). Furthermore, land that
was previously developed but where
the remains of the permanent structure
or fixed surface structure have blended
into the landscape in the process of
time is also not classified as brown
field.
The National Planning Policy
Framework has recently been
published, and this retains protection
for Green Belt.
The National Planning Policy
Framework has recently been
published, and this retains protection
for Green Belt.
Name
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
What is the governments policy on building on brownfield land before
greenfield?
Hulton Area Forum
There is no medical centre in Over Hulton. The nearest is Atherton and it
is very difficult to get appointments, appears under staffed and no female
doctor is available. It was suggested that good locations would be Hulton
Park on Newbrook Road or somewhere on the A6.
Little Lever and Darcy
Lever Area Forum
Does the draft Allocations Plan show a new health centre in Little Lever?
The National Planning Policy
Framework has recently been
published, and this states the following
core planning principle: "encourage the
effective use of land by reusing land
that has been previously developed
(brownfield land), provided that it is not
of high environmental value".
The Department of Health allocates
revenue between Primary Care Trusts
based on the health needs of the local
population. Bolton's PCT has chosen
to prioritise spending on developing
health centres in those areas with
greatest health care needs, and the
Over Hulton area has not been
identified as one of these locations.
The Allocations Plan needs to reflect
the investment plan of the NHS, and
this is why no site has been identified
in this area.
Bolton's Primary Care Trust has
determined that the Little Lever Health
Centre should be replaced with a new
building on a site yet to be determined,
by 2015. The PCT has not requested
that a new site is allocated on their
behalf as it is possible that the
redevelopment of the existing site may
occur, and therefore does not need to
be shown on the plan.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
113
Name
Organisation
Vicky Urmston
Connor Vallelly
Bolton Council
Comment Summary
Council response
More information should be given as to why current clinics i.e. Horwich
will be closing and a new clinic built.
Within the draft Allocations Plan, the
Council has reflected the priorities of
Bolton PCT's Asset Management plan
for developing new and improved
health centres. The PCT has
determined that Horwich Health Centre
should be replaced with a new building
by 2016. Please contact the PCT for
more information on "Building Better
Health for Bolton"
Core Strategy policy OA1.12 states the
following: "Develop new or expanded
medical and health facilities at both
Horwich and Blackrod". As indicated
by the Allocations Plan, the timing of
the delivery of this has slipped,
however the determination of the site
location will ultimately rest with the
Bolton Primary Care Trust (PCT).
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
It is noted under the table at paragraph 1.6 that Horwich Health Centre is
due to be replaced with a new build facility likely to be completed by
2015/16. This is in accordance with HVL’s discussions with the Council
which have indicated that such provision will not be required as part of
the comprehensive mixed-use regeneration of the former Loco Works
site.
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Have you made any allowance for more parking, build of GP's surgeries
and health centres?
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
114
The Bolton Primary Care Trust is
responsible for providing the funding
for care received from general
practioners. The Department of Health
allocates revenue between Primary
Care Trusts based on the health needs
of the local population. Bolton's PCT
has chosen to prioritise spending on
developing health centres in those
areas with greatest health care needs.
It is recognised that the Westhoughton
area is a location of lower priority
health needs when compared to other
areas, but that a new health centre will
be required. The Allocations Plan
needs to reflect the investment plan of
the NHS, and this is why a site has not
yet been identified in this area.
Name
Mr Stephen
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
An allocation of a site for a health centre should be considered.
The Department of Health allocates
revenue between Primary Care Trusts
based on the health needs of the local
population. Bolton's PCT has chosen
to prioritise spending on developing
health centres in those areas with
greatest health care needs. It is
recognised that the Westhoughton
area is a location of lower priority
health needs when compared to other
areas, but that a new health centre will
be required. The Allocations Plan
needs to reflect the investment plan of
the NHS, and this is why a site has not
yet been identified in this area.
Emery Partnership
Amendments to the Proposals Map
Support noted
We note that paragraph 3.24 of the draft allocations plan proposes to
increase the size of Little Lever Town Centre. The proposals map shows
that the town centre would be increased
to include the application site described above. We support this
amendment.
The need for additional convenience retailing at Little Lever is identified
in the recently adopted Core Strategy dated March 2011. Policy OA6
states that Little Lever town-centre
would be allowed to expand for additional convenience floorspace if a
site became available.
The evidence base behind this policy, which is the 2008 Bolton Leisure
and Retail Study, states that there is a quantitative and qualitative
deficiency in convenience floor space in Little Lever which results in a
low localised retention rate for convenience retailing. The only way for
this rate to be increased is through the provision of addition convenience
retailing.
A sequential assessment has been undertaken as part of our application
to assess all of the available units and sites within and on the edge of
Little Lever town-centre as to their
availability, suitability and viability for a supermarket. The town-centre is
comprised predominantly of small retail units which are dispersed
throughout the centre, along with
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
115
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
other uses such as residential (C3) and community and institutional uses
(D1 and D2).
The sequential assessment concludes that there are no available,
suitable or viable units to accommodate the proposed development
within the town-centre; and that the application site is the only available
edge-of-centre site that would meet the requirement in policy OA6 of the
Core Strategy. The proposed amendment in the Allocations DPD
confirms that this is the position.
Hamish
Robertshaw
Bolton Council
DTZ on b/h Howarth
Estates
The extension to the town centre boundary will assist in bringing an
existing vacant site back into use and new employment for the local area.
This would accord with Paragraph 10.1 of PPS4 which states that “Local
planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive
approach towards planning applications for economic development.
Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should
be treated favourably.”
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to
contact me. In the meantime, we look forward to hearing from you in
relation to the progression of the
Allocations Plan.
As stated above, we support the boundary of the Cutacre employment
site and associated Green Belt boundary changes as shown on the draft
Proposals Map.
We wish to comment on two other designations shown on the proposals
map in this area which we consider to be inappropriate and should be
amended or removed:
· The minerals area of search for opencast coal designation should be
removed as the site has now been worked for open cast coal extraction
and is currently subject to restoration work.
· The Ponds at Lomax Brow Site of Biological Importance boundary is
inappropriate as it predates the open cast mine workings and
consequently bears no relevance to the landscape that exists at present.
An alternative SBI boundary which lies within the proposed country park
may be defined and designated in due course .
I trust that this submission is of assistance to your preparation of the
Allocations Plan document and look forward to discussing this further in
due course. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss the above
further, then please contact me on the number above.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
116
Minerals areas of search are being
considered through the Greater
Manchester Minerals Plan.
It is acknowledged that the ecological
significance of the SBI has been
affected by opencast operations, but
until SBI boundaries are formally
changed through a fresh survey, then
they should remain on the Proposals
Map.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Helen Telfer
Environment Agency
On the current proposals map there appears to be an allocation for
housing for the ‘Land at Temple Road’ which includes the Temple Lodge
Site of Biological Importance. We would ask the Council to clarify
whether or not this allocation includes the SBI designation as we
consider that a fundamental objective should be to retain the local wildlife
and green infrastructure asset.
River valleys and watercourses are key green infrastructure assets that
require protection and enhancement where possible. They have been
identified as forming important elements in both the ‘An ecological
framework for Greater
Manchester’(http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/an_ecological_fra
mework_for_greater_manchester.pdf ) and the ‘Green Infrastructure
Framework’
(http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/1547.058_Final_Repo
rt_September_2008.pdf ).
Bolton borough has an extensive network of open space and green
corridors which are connected to the main urban centres through a
number of river valleys including Eagley Brook, Bradshaw Brook and
Middle Brook. As part of any redevelopment along these corridors, there
is significant opportunity to achieve key Water Framework Development
objectives, whilst ensuring there is no further fragmentation of key
ecological networks.
It is understood from the proposals map submission and accompanying
‘Site Allocation Explanatory Statement’ that it is not intended to show
rivers/watercourses as a separate notation on the proposals map. The
Council suggests (paragraph 9.10, Explanatory Statement) that the
borough’s principal green corridors are ‘protected from adverse
development by identification as Green Belt, Protected Open Land,
recreational open space or a significant wildlife site’. It would seem that
river corridors do not fall within any of these identified layers on the
proposals map.
Core Strategy paragraph 4.34 states that it ‘will also ensure that river
valleys are protected and improved, offering opportunities for recreation,
biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation including flood
risk’. Without annotated reference to river valleys / watercourses on the
proposals map, it is not clear how Policy CG1 will be implemented or
linked to a specific note of reference. Such reference on the proposals
map would strengthen Policy CG1 for development management
purposes and provide a link to the North West River Basin Management
Plan which implements objectives of the Water Framework Directive.
The Temple Road site should be
amended to exclude the SBI
The principal river valley in Bolton, the
Croal Irwell, is shown on the Draft
Allocations Plan, and other river
valleys are protected from
development by Green Belt status or
other planning policy constraints.
However it is acknowledged that it
would be a more comprehensive
approach to show all green corridors
(outside the Green Belt) to help to
implement Core Strategy Policy CG1.
This is consistent with the approach in
the Unitary Development Plan.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
117
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Hulton Area Forum
Concerns that in future the developer of Cutacre will fail to pursue
employment use and press for housing development instead. Positive
comments were made about the success of the campaign so far which
has reduced Green Belt land-take and resulted in the revised Cutacre
boundary.
The adopted Core Strategy and draft
Allocations Plan allocate the site for
employment development.
Development of this site for housing
would be contrary to the Core
Strategy.
The need for a broad location for
employment development at Cutacre
has been established through the
adopted Core Strategy.
Frank Pimblett
Westhoughton North and
Chew Moor Area Forum
Bolton Council
It is very well known that many people in the area surrounding Cutacre
are totally opposed to all of the plans which have materialised since the
ending of coal extraction came on the horizon. They objected in many
ways and for lots of sensible reasons why the Core Strategy plans
should be scrapped, so that the original promise made to the citizens of
this town, before the coal extraction could begin, that of a very near full
restoration to the original landscape.
Personally, I was in agreement with the coal extraction as coal is a
national assessed, but there is an even greater national asset which if
British Coal/Peel Holdings/Harworth Estates have their way, will be
destroyed, that of good growing land for food. It is also well known that
the nation does not need more industrial sites as it has been pointed out
previously by the multitude of people who objected to the original Core
Strategy plans.
In my opinion the Town Development Team should now after all that has
been discussed, written about, examined, inspected, voted upon,
objected to, abandon the Core Strategy Plans for Cutacre as is and do a
fresh one which develops a genuine concern for the land as a national
asset and completely satisfy the people of this great town.
I obviously object to all the non sensical plans and would support
Cutacre land being restored to farm land and the park land as promised.
Are there any plans to extend the Wingates Industrial Area?
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
118
The Core Strategy and draft
Allocations Plan do not propose to
extend the Wingates Industrial Estate
nor change Green Belt or Protected
Open Land boundaries in the vicinity.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Barry Dean
B & E Boys Ltd
B&E Boys Ltd wish to propose a slightly different Mixed Use split of the
Crompton Way site that that shown on the plan attached to a letter dated
14th April 2011. An accompanying plan shows a separation between the
area occupied by PMT Industries Limited and the mainly vacant land to
the south. It is proposed that the land to the south extending to
approximately 40% of the site be allocated for ongoing and higher
density employment use, while those to the north, largely occupied by
PMT Industries, are designated for possible future residential
development that would link in with the existing housing off Crompton
Way.
Policy P6A9 aims to achieve a
balanced mix of employment and
housing uses over the whole area. The
policy is flexible in allowing for this to
be achieved in a variety of ways. The
suggested approach would limit the
number of ways in which the
sustainable development of this site
could be achieved.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
119
Name
Farrow
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I have to say that still there is a bitter taste in my mouth due to the way
the residents around the area of green belt land known as Cutacre have
been treated by our ruling Labour majority run council and the
Government planning inspector both of which never tried to protect the
wish of the public of Over Hulton. This was not just once this has
happened but several times to us the residents, the Fact that UK coal
was given the go ahead to extract coal in the 1st place was a disaster. It
should never have been allowed to happen after years of fighting this the
then John Prescott gave the go ahead against the residents and Bolton
councils objections. But we were given a PROMISE by all concerned we
would have a worth while wait as we would get a restored site for all to
enjoy once again. Of course we all know what happened Bolton Council
stabbed us in the back, and as a resident i can only say that the Council
had already developed a plan With UK coal for the development. We
residents fought this plan and a least earned a shallow victory by gaining
some of the Green belt back it wasn't what we wanted but we thought we
could meet half way and gain something out of our fight to save this
green belt from development. Unfortunately this wasn't to be and we
were again let down by our council and the planning inspector who
decided not to say that we should keep the land we gained but left it
open as to whether development could increase due to land issues. This
meant UK coal went straight back to Bolton Council with amendments to
the plans which they approved and we lost more land to development
again, The council had let us down again as i feel the reasons to do this
was a monetary decision for UK coals benefit not the residents of Over
Hulton to be honest I'm sick of the way we have been treated by all
concerned this was a lovely area with some wonderful habitats for
various species of wildlife some highly protected, an area of special
interest to science and an area of Biodiversity all supposedly protected
by UK and European law which obviously counts for nothing. Bolton
Council says its a green council I don't believe that as a true statement
off past and present evidence WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING NATURE
from the advances of development. I also think we will never see the no
of people employed on this site that Bolton council would have us believe
we will not get the manufacturing as Bolton council and UK coal Keep
saying. The traffic in this area is bad enough but it is likely to get
unbearable in the future with an increase in HGVs going to the
development. I'm totally against the development plans as they stand.
The need for a broad location for
employment development at Cutacre
has been established through the
adopted Core Strategy.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
120
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Hamish
Robertshaw
DTZ on b/h Howarth
Estates
We support the content of the ‘Prosperous Bolton – Employment Land’
chapter and its reference to Core Strategy Policy M3 regarding the broad
location for employment development at Cutacre. We support the
allocation of land described in paragraph 3.13 and supported by
Appendix 1; in particular, the identification of Cutacre as allocated
employment land of 80 hectares.
To ensure conformity to the Inspector’s Report on the Core Strategy,
however, it should be reiterated in paragraph 3.13 and/or Appendix 1 that
“the 80ha should be construed as being the net development area, not
the overall extent of the site” (see Inspector’s Report paragraph 56).
Consideration may be given to the inclusion in the Allocations Plan of
further details or a policy relating specifically to the Cutacre site. This
would comprise details of the range of uses which are acceptable at the
Cutacre site and guidance on further assessment, delivery and phasing
etc. Cross reference may be made to the Green Belt changes
necessitated by the allocation and described in chapter 5 ‘Cleaner and
Greener Bolton’.
Appropriate paragraph and appendix
amended as suggested.
We consider that the appropriate range of uses at the Cutacre site
includes the following:
Primary Uses
· B1b Research & Development
· B1c Light Industrial
· B2 General Industrial
· B8 Storage and Distribution
· On-site renewable energy generation
· Other sui generis uses appropriate to an industrial location
Ancillary or Supporting Uses
· B1a Office
· C1 Hotel
· A1 Retail
· A2 Financial & Professional Services
· A3 Cafe / Restaurant
· A4 Drinking Establishment
· A5 Takeaway
Harworth Estates is currently working in partnership with Peel
Environmental Ltd to explore the incorporation of on-site renewable
energy generation within any development at Cutacre. Such energy
generation has the potential to provide adjacent employment
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
121
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
development with heating, cooling and electricity generation, as
appropriate to the proposed uses on site, and should be encouraged
within the Plan. Please refer to the representations submitted by Peel
Environmental Ltd, which are fully endorsed by Harworth Estates, for
further details.
It is anticipated that development will be brought forward via an outline
masterplan which guides a series of phases of development. Full
consultation, assessment and justification of the proposal will be
provided in planning submissions at both the outline masterplan and
detailed phase stages.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
122
Council response
Name
Organisation
Dorothy Syddall
Stephen Hedley
Bolton Council
Natural England
Comment Summary
Council response
I would like my objections to your "Draft Allocations Plan" to be noted…
re. the proposals for the Over Hulton area (Cutacre). My trust in Bolton
Council was never very high but since the Cutacre fiasco, it has reached
rock bottom. The amazing turn-out of our residents at the Core Strategy
meeting was something to behold. However you ignored our feelings &
our wishes. The Cutacre site WAS Greenbelt ~ beautiful farmland ~
before it was mined. It could have been turned back into the same if you
had stood your ground. Instead you betrayed us all in Over Hulton, with
your basic greed.
Horwich Loco Works: Natural England commented on this site at the
Core Strategy stage, where the site is allocated as a strategic
development site. Our concern particularly focussed on the relationship
to, and any impacts on, the adjoining Red Moss SSSI. We were of
course concerned to ensure that value of the SSSI is conserved and
where possible enhanced. We welcomed that Policy M2 requires the
protection of the value of Red Moss SSSI. In addition, Policy CG1 of
course provides for enhancement as well as safeguarding of biodiversity.
We were consulted in 2010 on the scoping for a Supplementary Planning
Document for the Loco Works site, and we understand that this is to be
progressed to a draft SPD by the Council. We would of course wish to be
consulted on the SPD to ensure as far as possible that the Red Moss
SSSI is safeguarded and enhanced and that our other interests are
reflected in the SPD.
The need for a broad location for
employment development at Cutacre
has been established through the
adopted Core Strategy.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
123
The Horwich Loco Works site was fully
addressed through the Core Strategy
and the adopted Proposals Map has
been updated accordingly.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Horwich Loco Works Policy M1
• GMEU have also raised objections to the boundary of this allocation as
it impinges both on the Site of Biological Importance and green corridor.
Not only does the loss of these habitats impact on the SBI and features
of biodiversity such as common toad and water vole (Wildlife &
Countryside Act 1981 as amended) but it also reduces the potential
buffer to the adjacent SSSI.
• I am aware that the allocation has been subject to a separate
consultation on an SPD. However, it is of note that the Sustainability
Appraisal for the Allocation Plan does not include an assessment of this
allocation.
• I would strongly recommend that through the process of formulation of
the Allocations Plan that consideration is given to altering the boundary
of Horwich Loco Works as suggested in my previous correspondence on
this issue (cf e-mails in March 2011 & April 2011 to Andrew Lancashire).
GMEU would be willing to assist in this process in light of additional
survey work that was scheduled to be undertaken in 2011.
The Horwich Loco Works site was
addressed fully through the Core
Strategy. The proposals map has been
update accordingly.
Martin Nield
The Lancahire and
Yorkshire Railway Society
The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society understands that it is
difficult to find alternative uses for many of the former railway buildings at
Horwich Works, but would wish to see a number of them retained if
possible.
As we said in our response to the Core Strategy consultation process,
Horwich Loco Works played a very significant role in British railway
history and, although the remaining buildings are not considered to have
architectural merit, they are certainly historically significant.
In particular it is, in our view, essential that the main office block is
retained as this is where famous locomotive engineers of the past, such
as John Aspinall and George Hughes worked. We would also like to see
the adjacent stores building and other buildings retained if possible in
order to preserve for future generations something of this historic
location.
In addition we would like to see a proper professional survey, including
photographs and drawings, of all the remaining buildings before any
demolition takes place and permanent display boards erected outlining
the history and importance of the site
The Horwich Loco Works site was fully
addressed through the Core Strategy
and the adopted Proposals Map has
been updated accordingly.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
124
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Connor Vallelly
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
The Horwich Loco Works site was
addressed fully through the Core
Strategy. The proposals map has been
update accordingly.
Philip Grant
Drivers Jonas Deloitte
Paragraph 3.9 of the DPD acknowledges that the former Horwich Loco
Works is identified for mixed-use development including employment
uses. As set out in Core Strategy background document No. 8 it is
proposed that this will constitute primarily B1 office development which
should be reflected in the DPD text.
Policy TC8 promotes employment-led mixed uses at the Church Wharf
site, with an emphasis on new offices, leisure and retail uses on and
around Manor Street and Bank Street with residential elements to the
east and south of the area.
This approach accords with the guidance set out in the adopted Church
Wharf Supplementary Planning Document and with the proposals
approved as part of the outline planning permission for the site that was
granted to ASK/Bluemantle in 2009 (ref. 79736/08).
Whilst housing and offices remain appropriate uses for the site, the
precise development mix likely to come forward on the site is unclear at
this stage due to economic uncertainties. In order to maximise
opportunities and ensure that a scheme for the comprehensive
redevelopment of Church Wharf can be brought forward at the earliest
opportunity, Policy TC8 should therefore if possible acknowledge that a
wider range of development proposals, including those led by other
appropriate town centre uses (e.g. retail, leisure) would also be
appropriate for the site.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
125
Policy TC8 is an adopted Core
Strategy Policy and thus can not be
amended without review. Policy TC8 is
flexible and already promotes an
emphasis on leisure and retail uses on
and around Manor Street and Bank
Street.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Further to our response on the above Allocation Plan dated the 23
January 2012, we would like to add further comments with regards to the
employment allocation at Cutacre.
The restoration scheme and the
employment allocation are two
separate issues and need to be
treated as such. The restoration
scheme is being dealt with through the
planning application for open cast coal
mining, whereas the employment
allocation is being dealt with through
the Core Strategy and Allocations
Plan.
Whilst we acknowledge that this response supersedes the consultation
deadline for 27 January 2012, we would be grateful if the Council would
still consider our response as set out below.
We have recently been consulted on revised restoration proposals at
Cutacre as part of the development permission for open cast coal mining
and are supportive of the revisions made.
Part of the area identified for restoration falls within the site allocation
boundary for the Cutacre employment site. As such it would seem that
the restoration plan would be difficult to implement if the site allocation is
to be approved with the boundary as proposed.
We would ask that the Council demonstrate that these restoration
proposals would not be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed
allocation.
Alan Walsh
Bolton Council
We look forward to the response on this matter as part of the Site
Allocations consultation.
Cutacre: The proposal is too ambitious and will take excessive Greenbelt
out of its original allocation. The present road and infrastructure will not
cope with the increased loads. The aim of 4000 jobs is unrealistic. The
revised restoration plan allows levels to be adjusted to accommodate the
proposed industry, the revised levels have been carried out already,
without authorisation being sought, to my mind a complete travesty of
natural justice.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
126
The adopted Core Strategy states that
a site at Cutacre is required for
employment development with a net
developable area of 80ha. It also
allows for Green Belt boundary
changes. In the Allocations Plan it is
the boundary of the site, rather than
the principle of development that
needs to be considered.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Carol Clarke
HOW Planning on b/h
United Utilities
Marketing
As stated in the previous representations, United Utilities instructed
Matthews and Goodman LLP to undertake a structured marketing
campaign in March 2007 to identify potential occupiers for Meridian
Court. This produced limited responses. The former depot has not been
marketed due to the current short term and flexible lease arrangement
with Vertex who continue to have an operational requirement for the
accommodation.
Overall, the site does not perform well in the competitive North West
market. Other sites offer far more flexibility and space to suit modern day
business needs. The removal of the protected employment allocation
therefore prevents this site from staying underutilised.
Support for removal of protected
employment land noted
Planning Policy Statement 4
The removal of the employment allocation from the site is justified
through Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4): Planning for Sustainable
Economic Growth (2009).
Policy EC2: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth clearly states
that “existing site allocations should not be carried forward from one
version of the development plan to the next without evidence of the need
and reasonable prospect of their take up during the plan period”. It
further states that “if there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used
for the allocated economic use, the allocation should not be retained, and
wider economic uses or alternative uses should be considered”.
As stated in the previous representations, the buildings on site are
coming to the end of their useful lifespan and both require substantial
investment in order to make them suitable or attractive to future
occupiers. As such there is no “reasonable prospect” of the site being
used for employment and through deallocation the Council are helping
“to facilitate a broad range of economic development, including mixed
use”. Similarly, the un-allocation of the site accords with Policy EC2 of
PPS4 by demonstrating that the Local Planning Authority has flexible
policies that allow for the quick response to changing economic
circumstances and “make the most efficient and effective use of land”
which “reflects the different location requirements of businesses”.
Draft National Planning Policy Framework
The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages Local
Planning Authorities to “plan proactively to meet the development needs
of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century”. Again, it
recommends flexible policies which “address potential barriers to
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
127
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
investment”, and those which “avoid the long term protection of
employment land”, taking into consideration “market signals and the
relative need for different land uses”. By removing the employment
allocation from this site the Council has again demonstrated its
commitment to national planning policy.
Core Strategy
The additional text that accompanies Policy P1: Prosperous Bolton
states that “there are existing employment locations … that can be
redeveloped for manufacturing or for mixed uses” within renewal areas
and that they should not be protected if they “no longer meet modern
employment needs”. Policy P1 itself further states that where existing
employment sites are not compatible with residential amenity and do not
contribute to the sustainability of the communities in which they are
situated, “mixed uses will be encouraged to retain an element of
employment”. Due to the imminent obsolescence of the site and its
proximity to residential streets, both to the north east and the south east,
it is therefore incompatible with residential amenity and thus its deallocation from traditional employment use will allow for more sustainable
social and economic development to locate on the site.
The draft Proposals Map places the site within the Inner Bolton Renewal
Area. Policy RA1: Inner Bolton addresses the benefits of regeneration of
said employment sites. It states that in Inner Bolton the Council will aim
to “regenerate … older industrial premises … with a mixture of new build
and refurbishment for primarily employment uses, with supporting
residential and mixed uses”. It further states that the Council will “make
efficient use of land in Inner Bolton” by continuing to focus jobs in
“modern” employment areas in The 3 Valley, and developing new
housing throughout the area on brownfield sites, thus protecting the
Green Belt boundaries. As such, the Core Strategy is directly supportive
of the more sustainable mixed use of employment land where
appropriate. As demonstrated above, keeping this site as employment
land will not generate the most sustainable outcome possible. But by
unallocating it the Council has created a more attractive proposition to
potential investors, allowing the Borough to narrow the gap between the
most and the least well off people.
Employment Land Supply
The Council’s Employment Land Study Report (2008) states in the
‘Matching Demand with Supply’ chapter that there is a 175-195ha
demand for employment land in Bolton between 2007 and 2026. This
equates to between 9.2ha and 10.3ha of demand per year. As the 2010
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
128
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Employment Land Resource Update states, “over the 10 year period
between 2000 and 2010, the take up of land for employment use has
averaged just under ten hectares per year. As such, Bolton is currently
meeting its annual employment land supply. Similarly, the 2008 report
recommends that “the needs of existing businesses to relocate into more
suitable premises to meet modern business needs” should be considered
in the LDF preparation process; and it is the larger sites, such as Cutacre
and Horwich Loco Works, which are of interest in meeting employment
needs for the Greater Manchester region as a whole – not the smaller
sites such as the land at Manchester Road.
Conclusion
United Utilities fully support the Council’s proactive removal of the
protected employment allocation from the site at Manchester Road,
Bolton. The buildings on site are coming to the end of their useful
lifespan and there is certainly no reasonable prospect of the land being
taken up for further employment use alone. The de-allocation of the land
therefore conforms to PPS4 as it would be inappropriate to carry forward
the employment allocation without reasonable prospect.
Opening the site up for wider uses subsequently helps meet the wider
Government objectives of sustainable economic growth through the
promotion of more effective regeneration as noted in the NPPF. Similarly
the Council’s Core Strategy also follows this ethos through its promotion
of mixed uses in renewal areas where employment land no longer meets
modern business needs or is incompatible with surrounding uses.
Overall, the removal of the protected employment allocation from this site
has shown Bolton Council’s ability to respond flexibly to changing, and
often difficult, economic conditions. Without flexibility the Council could
hinder the benefits of regeneration that come with this un-allocation.
I
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
129
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Alistair Skelton
On b/h of James Industrial
Limited
We do not object to the main Cutacre Allocation. These comments relate
to a smaller discrete area which lies to the east of the main Cutacre site.
That site has a recent planning permission for economic development
and an approved access onto Salford Road. However, there are real
uncertainties regarding delivery of economic development on that site.
Developer interest was identified in 2010 and negotiations progressed to
an advanced stage. The developer pulled out citing commercial viability
reasons and concerns about the impact of the proposed Cutacre
development. The Cutacre development will take advantage of strategic
infrastructure and services provision on the back of the current open cast
activities. This will result, hopefully, in a well serviced and deliverable
locally significant economic development. However, our clients site will
carry infrastructure and servicing costs which will render the
development commercially unviable - the developer previously involved
simply could not guarantee future values to justify normal development
costs. The soundness of allocating/identifying our clients site for
economic development is highly questionable given difficulties with
delivery - particularly when competing with vacant premises/sites
elsewhere in the M61 Corridor and with what the Cutacre site can deliver
in terms of a new high quality, fully serviced and well located opportunity
for business. A further test of soundness is that the Site Allocations DPD
considers all reasonable alternatives. We would suggest that our client
site is appropriate also for housing development. It is physically and
functionally separate from the main Cutacre site, and it has its own
discrete access already approved. It relates well to existing nearby
housing, and is in an accessible location. Discussions are on-going with
Salford Council regarding the future development of land immediately to
the east for housing (in part). We believe that the site can make a useful
contribution to meeting the Council's housing needs.
The council considers this be a poor
site for housing. The site is adjacent to
the Cutacre site and is inherently
linked. The site would benefit from the
strategic infrastructure and service
provisions that the Cutacre
development will bring.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
130
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Grace Sim
BNP Paaribas Real
Estate
Travis Perkins has two land holdings within the borough: Bark Street
Bolton, and Albert Road, Farnworth. It is requested that the Albert Road
site is protected for employment use and the Bark Street site is protected
for employment use whilst recognising future development potential for
alternative uses such as residential or residential led mixed use
development given its town centre location and the range of uses in the
immediate surrounding area. This amendment will ensure that Travis
Perkins existing operations will not be prejudice, whilst providing a
greater degree of flexibility for viable development proposals to come
forward in the future.
The full representation is available on request.
The Bark Street site is located within
Bolton town centre. The draft
Allocations Plan doesn't propose to
allocate land for specific uses within
Bolton town centre, with the exception
of Westbrook. Within Bolton town
centre 25-35 hectares of land will be
made available for employment use up
to 2026 and of the 12,492 dwellings to
be developed in the borough up to
2026 10-20% will be in Bolton town
centre. Within the town centre the
Bark Street site is covered by Core
Strategy TC10 which supports an
increase in the number of houses in
the area. This allows for sufficient
flexibility. The Albert Road site is
located on the edge of Farnworth town
centre. In the draft Allocations Plan this
site was proposed as a housing
allocation. This proposed allocation
has been removed. It is in a wellestablished commercial use as a
builder's merchants and removing the
housing allocation will ensure that the
current use is not prejudiced while
providing flexibility should the current
use cease. Allocating this land as
protected employment land wouldn't
allow sufficient flexibility and would be
over restrictive. The Albert Road site
will therefore be left unallocated.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
131
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Linda Wright
Planit Wright on b/h of
Professional Design Ltd
RESPONSE TO BOLTON’S ALLOCATIONS PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
DOCUMENT: DRAFT VERSION 25 OCTOBER 2011
LAND TO THE WEST OF WINGATES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
CHORLEY
ROAD WESTHOUGHTON
I have been instructed by Professional Designs Ltd, the owner of land
adjacent to Wingates Industrial Estate, Westhoughton, to submit
representations in respect of the above consultation document. These
representations are specifically related to the Wingates land, its location
in the Green Belt and its promotion as a site for future employment
development in the M61 Corridor Westhoughton area.
On behalf of Professional Designs Ltd I propose the allocation of this site
for future employment development.
It is understood that any representations received will be considered in
order to assist in the production of the forthcoming Allocations Plan:
Development Plan Document (DPD). Please ensure that I continue to be
notified about this and other Local Development Framework (LDF)
consultation documents.
The site to which these representations refer is located to the south of
Chorley Road (A6), Westhoughton and has its eastern boundary with the
Wingates Industrial Estate main access road (Wimberry Hill Road).
Core Strategy Policy P1 states that the
council and its partners will identify a
range of employment sites for new
development with a total area of
between 145 and 165 ha up to 2026.
Appendix 1 shows which sites will be
allocated to meet the requirement of
this policy. Although slightly below the
requirement identified in Core Strategy
Policy P1 the difference is expected to
be made up through employment
development on the mixed use
allocations and windfall development.
The land adjacent to Wingates also
lies within the Green Belt and
employment development would
therefore be contrary to both the local
plan and the NPPF. It is recognised
that the broad location for employment
development at Cutacre is located
within the Green Belt, however, the
need for employment development at
this site, and subsequent amendment
to the Green Belt boundary, was
identified through the adopted Core
Strategy.
Site Description
The site comprises an area of land measuring 18.77 hectares, which lies
to the west of and directly adjoining the existing Wingates Industrial
Estate. These representations seek to promote the land as a sustainable
option for employment/economic development over the period up to 2026
covered by the Core Strategy and Development Plan Documents.
@planitwright.co.uk
The Principle of Development
It is recognised that the site lies within the Green Belt. But it is also noted
that paragraph 3.3 acknowledges that the ‘scale of development (for
employment) necessitates a change to the Green Belt boundary along
the M61 corridor.’ It seems iniquitous, therefore, that the reason for not
including the Wingates land within the employment allocation is that it too
lies in the Green Belt.
It is considered that other local Green Belt boundary changes at
Wingates should be considered to provide a contingency plan, to allow
for flexibility and shifts in the economic climate and to ensure that Bolton
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
132
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
is able to fully meet its economic development requirements. Exceptional
circumstances can be applied just as equally to the Wingates land as
they have been at the Cutacre site.
Constraints
The site lies within the M61 Corridor, approximately equidistant from
junctions 5 and 6 of the M61. The site is therefore easily accessible by
road.
Westhoughton Rail Station lies less than a mile to the south east and
Horwich Parkway Station is 2 miles to the north west.
The site does not lie in an area that is at risk of flooding and the drainage
from any development could be connected to the main system on
Chorley Road or Wimberry Hill Road.
There are no significant mature trees on the site although there are a
number of semi mature trees and hedges on the boundaries.
The site is relatively level falling away southwards from Chorley Road.
The topography of the site is such that, as with the Wingates Industrial
Estate, very little of the future development of industrial buildings would
be visible from the A6.
The whole of the land is available and the owner of the site is committed
to ensuring its availability. The site is sustainable and deliverable. The
site lies within the M61 Corridor which is recognised by the Council as a
vital part of the strategy to secure opportunities for economic growth and
investment.
Access
The site adjoins the existing Wingates Industrial area which is a
successful economic development site. The Wingates Industrial area is
well served by an existing traffic light controlled junction at Wimberry Hill
Road and Chorley Road. Access into the Wingates land could be taken
from Wimberry Hill Road.
This road is of sufficient standard to accommodate additional vehicular
traffic.
: [email protected]
Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic
Growth
Policy EC1.3 of PPS4 states that at the local level the evidence base
should ‘assess the future supply of land available for economic
development, ensuring that existing site allocations for economic
development are reassessed against the policies in this PPS...’
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
133
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Policy EC2.1 indicates that in planning for sustainable economic growth
local authorities should ensure their development plan:
b. supports existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are
expanding or contracting and, where possible, identifies and plans for
new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area ...... policies should
be flexible enough to accommodate sectors not anticipated in the plan
and allow a quick response to changes in economic circumstances
h. at the local level, where necessary to safeguard land from other uses,
identifies a range of sites, to facilitate a broad range of economic
development, including mixed use. Existing site allocations should not be
carried forward from one version of the development plan to the next
without evidence of the need and reasonable prospect of their take up
during the plan period. If there is no reasonable prospect of a site being
used for the allocated economic use, the allocation should not be
retained, and wider economic uses or alternative uses should be
considered.
It is considered that the Wingates site would comply with the
requirements of PPS4 and provide flexibility to respond to changing
economic circumstances.
National Planning Policy Framework (draft)
On 25th July 2011 the Government published the draft National Planning
Policy
Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is to be the centre piece of the
Government’s reforms to the planning system in England. It will provide a
single policy framework, consolidating and replacing the existing national
guidance in the form of PPGs and PPSs.
As well as a simplified policy agenda and economic growth the key
objectives
at the heart of the NPPF are:
• Emphasis on a positive and proactive planning process
• Presumption in favour of sustainable development
• A clear expectation that acceptable development should be approved
and not unnecessarily delayed .co.uk
In the section entitled Planning for Prosperity – Business and Economic
Development the draft NPPF states that in drawing up Local Plans local
planning authorities should:
• set out a clear economic vision and strategy which positively and
proactively encourages sustainable economic growth
• set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
134
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
match the strategy and to meet anticipated requirements over the plan
period
• support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are
expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new
or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area.
Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate requirements not
anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in
economic circumstances
• positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or
networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries
• identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure
provision and environmental enhancement; and
• facilitate new working practices such as live/work.
Paragraph 75 states that ‘planning policies should avoid the long term
protection of employment land ... and applications for alternative uses of
designated land....... should be treated on their merits having regard to
market signals and the relative need for different land uses.’
Given the guidance in the NPPF it is considered that the Council in its
Core Strategy policies and the draft Allocations Plan is being overly
prescriptive and failing to allow for sufficient flexibility to accommodate
requirements not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to
changes in economic circumstances.
The inclusion of the 18 hectare Wingates site in the M61 Corridor for
potential employment provision would represent a contingency plan
which would allow such flexibility in the event of unanticipated changes in
circumstances.
Whilst it is appreciated that the NPPF is still a consultation document
and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, nevertheless it gives a
clear indication of the Government’s `direction of travel’ in planning policy
especially with regard to economic development.
In view of the above highlighted matters I promote this site and request
that it is included in the Allocations Plan for potential future employment
use.
@planitwright.co.uk
In order to assist I have included at the end of this letter a plan showing
the extent of the site edged in red together with an extract from the
Council’s Allocations map showing the location of the site.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course but in the meantime if
you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
135
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Policy P6AP (Mixed Use Development) is a new Policy and it should be
made clearer on the allocations plan that this does not apply to Horwich
Loco Works, which has its own Core Strategy Policies to guide
development of the site. At the moment the yellow shading for this policy
is the same as that for HLW Policies M1 and M2. A different colour or
shading should be used.
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Allocations site references should be given for the employment sites
(within the Appendices), so that they can be easily identified.
Although the yellow colour applies to
all mixed use sites covered by policies
M1, M2 (Horwich Loco Works) and
P6AP these policies will be applied
independently i.e. Policies M1 and M2
refer only to th Horwich Loco Works
and P6AP applies only to Moses Gate,
Halliwell Mills, Higher Swan
Lane/Sunnyside and Crompton Way.
This will be clarified in the supporting
text.
Allocations plan site references will be
provided for employment sites
(including in the appendices)
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
The allocations plan is showing site 39P as a protected employment
area. This area was previously ‘white land’ on the adopted UDP map and
should stay as such. There is no reason why the designation of this land
should change. There are other ‘employment generating’ uses which
would be appropriate in this area which could help diversify the offer at
Middlebrook and help re-let vacant units. Designating the land as
protected employment land is overly restrictive and unnecessary and we
object to this. The UDP map allocation of ‘white land’ should be retained.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
136
See supporting document on
justification of protected employment
sites.
Name
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum raised the following questions
regarding the proposed extension of the Little Lever town centre
boundary:
1.There are two current planning applications on the site, one for housing
and one for convenience retail. The council appears to be working on the
assumption that the convenience retail will be developed. It would be
better to await the outcome of these two applications before extending
the boundary.
2.Why is this the only site in the draft Allocations Plan without a
Sustainability Appraisal?
3.The Bolton Retail and Leisure Study (2008) contradicts itself – first it
says there is no need for additional convenience floorspace until after
2016 then it outlines an urgent need for additional convenience
floorspace in Little Lever.
4.Why has the Pennine Pet site been chosen above others?
5.Core Strategy Policy P2.3 states that the Council and its partners will
plan for additional convenience goods floorspace of up to 10,000 square
meters. 8, 598 additional square meters has already been provided by
the Longcauseway Tesco development.
6.How many convenience stores are there already in Little Lever? Why is
another required?
7.How many vacancies are there in Little Lever town centre?
1. Each planning application will be
determined individually taking into
account the local plan and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The draft
Allocations Plan proposes to increase
the boundary for convenience retailing
in line with Core Strategy Policy OA6,
which states that Little Lever town
centre will be allowed to expand for
additional convenience retailing if a
site becomes available.
2. A Sustainability appraisal was not
carried out for the changes in size to
some town centres, as this change
would not lead to the creation of
significant environmental effects. The
Sustainability Appraisal process is
intended to highlight the differences
between the different options and to
inform the preparation of the
Allocations plan, it focuses on
significant environmental effects and
be in proportionate length and detail to
the plan being appraised.
3. The Retail and Leisure Study
concludes that on a borough level
there is no need for new additional
convenience floorspace until after
2016. However, at a local level this is
overridden by a deficiency in
convenience retailing in three locations
including Little Lever. The study found
that many residents of the Little Lever
study area travel to stores in Central
Bolton, to Asda at Burnden and to
Asda stores in Radcliffe and Farnworth
in order to do their convenience
shopping.
4. Based on the need identified in the
Retail and Leisure Study, Core
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
137
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Strategy policy OA6 states that the
council and its partners will allow Little
Lever town centre to expand for
additional convenience floor space if a
site becomes available. The study
stated that "despite the existence of a
large number of vacant units, these are
small and dispersed through the centre
so that there are no obvious
development opportunities for meeting
the requirements of an operator such
as Aldi. In 2009 a mill at the Pennine
Pet site was destroyed by a fire and
subsequently the buildings have been
demolished, leaving a derelict site.
5. This is correct but does not address
the deficiency identified in the Little
Lever area.
6. The Retail
and Leisure Study identified 9
convenience goods units in Little Lever
town centre. These only serve as top up shopping destinations and do not
serve as a weekly shopping
destination. The result is that many
residents of the Little Lever study area
travel to stores in Central Bolton, to
Asda at Burnden and to Asda stores in
Radcliffe and Farnworth in order to do
their convenience shopping.
7. The Retail and Leisure Study
identified 15 vacant units in Little Lever
town centre.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
138
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Diana Richardson
Turley Associates
Bolton town centre boundary: The
busy dual carriageway (Trinity Way)
acts as a barrier between Bolton town
centre and the Sainsbury's Store/Retail
Park. Westhoughton town centre
boundary: Support noted.
Philip Marsden
Savills on b/h of UBS
Global Asset
Management (UK) Limited
Bolton town centre boundary: The existing Sainsbury's store and
adjacent retail units on Trinity Street are an established A1 retail location
that clearly function as part of Bolton town centre. It would be appropriate
to extend the town centre boundary to include these retail units,
particularly the Sainsbury's store to strengthen and enhance the role and
function of the sub regional centre. This proposal reflects a natural
extension to the town centre boundary of Bolton.
Westhoughton town centre boundary: Sainsbury's strongly support
the extension of Westhoughton town centre boundary to include their
existing store on Cricketer's Way. The Sainsbury's store is an
established A1 retail location and the proposals represent a natural
extension to Westhoughton town centre boundary.
Bolton Gate Retail Park: The Retail Park is currently located just outside
of the Bolton town centre boundary as illustrated on the draft Allocations
Plan. However, due to the type of retail operations undertaken at the site
and its proximity to the Primary Shopping Area and key transport hubs,
the Park already functions as an integral part of Bolton town centre’s
overall attraction as a commercial destination. The Park provides large
format retail floorspace which complement the units found within the
defined Primary and Secondary frontages. Together, the town centre and
the Retail Park provide a holistic range of shopping facilities to meet the
requirements of Bolton’s resident population.
To reflect the existing role of the Retail Park in terms of Bolton’s overall
attraction as a centre, we request that the town centre boundary is
redrawn to incorporate the Retail Park. This would more accurately
reflect the existing physical, functional and operational relationship
between the Retail Park and the wider town centre.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
139
The A666 and the A673 both act as
barriers between Bolton town centre
and the Bolton Gate Retail Park.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Philip Marsden
Savills on b/h of UBS
Global Asset
Management (UK) Limited
Bolton Gate retail park is clearly
separated from Bolton town centre by
both the A666 and the A673. The
National Planning Policy Framework
emphasises a town centre first
approach to retail development. The
Core Strategy's approach is to
increase the quantity of retail floor
space across the borough,
concentrating it mostly in Bolton town
centre. The Core Strategy goes on to
say that additional floorspace will be in
and immediately around the existing
civic and retail core and St. Helena
area, together with the Trinity area of
the Bolton Innovation Zone; it will not
be spread across the rest of the town
centre.
Philip Marsden
Savills on b/h of UBS
Global Asset
Management (UK) Limited
Bolton Gate Retail Park: The Retail Park is currently allocated under
Policy P7AP of the Allocations Plan DPD which relates to retail
warehousing. If the Council resolves not to extend the Town Centre
Boundary to incorporate the Retail Park, then we would request some
minor changes to the proposed wording.
The draft Policy currently states:
The council and its partners will plan for changes in retailing at the retail
warehouse parks, as listed below and shown on the Proposals Map,
provided there is no adverse effect on Bolton town centre or any other
centre, and that there is no substantial increase in floor space.
Trinity Street/Crook Street (Bolton Shopping Park)
Bolton Gate Retail Park Trinity Retail Park Burnden Retail Park
We support the overall theme of the draft Policy which takes a pro-active
approach and plans for additional growth at these established sites. This
accords with the objectives contained within Planning Policy Statement 4
(PPS 4) and the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). We
would however suggest that the policy provides more specific support for
appropriate development at these locations in an attempt to deliver and
promote further growth within the town.
We would also request that the phrase ‘and that there is no substantial
increase in floor space’ is removed. The Policy explicitly states that any
changes in retailing will only be accepted if there is no adverse effect on
Bolton town centre or any other centre. The impact of a development is
the critical test and not the quantum of floorspace proposed. If a planning
application can demonstrate that a substantial increase in floorspace
does not have an adverse impact on existing defined centres then the
proposal complies with current national policy outlined within PPS 4.
In light of the above, we suggest the Policy is reworded as follows:
The council and its partners will plan positively for changes in retailing at
the retail warehouse parks, as listed below and shown on the Proposals
Map, provided there is no significant adverse effect on Bolton town
centre or any other centre.
Trinity Street/Crook Street (Bolton Shopping Park) Bolton Gate Retail
Park Trinity Retail Park Burnden Retail Park
Bolton Gate Retail Park: General Comments
We agree that the site should continue to be allocated for retail land
uses. This will assist Bolton in attracting private sector investment which
in turn will help to create new job opportunities and wealth for local
residents. This accords with the principle objectives of both PPS 4 and
the draft NPPF which seek to deliver sustainable economic growth.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
140
Support noted
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
The Policy OA2 ‘red-edged’ boundary for Middlebrook on the allocations
plan should include the former Carpetworld unit and Kia Motors unit,
which both form part of the retail park and have consent for A1 bulky
goods uses.
Agreed
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Policy P7AP ‘Retail Warehouse Parks’ is a new policy which includes
Burnden Retail Park. Is this the Grangefern owned ‘Burnden Park’ on
Manchester Road, as it is not shown on the allocations plan as being
affected by this Policy? If so, we would wish to comment further.
The proposed allocation does not
relate to the Grangefern owned
Burnden Park site.
Linda Challender
Horwich Town Council
Leisure facilities should be retained. For example, the loss of a bowling
green at the rear of the former Greenwood Public House (Horwich) was a
cause of great concern to local residents.
The importance of leisure facilities are
recognised through the Core Strategy
and draft Allocations Plan. Leisure
issues are addressed through the Area
Based policies of the Core Strategy,
with the overall approach being to
concentrate leisure facilities in Bolton
town centre with its good public
transport access. The draft proposals
map allocates sites (over 0.4a ha) for
various uses including recreational
sites.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
141
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Rose Freeman
The Theatres Trust
The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres.
The Theatres Trust Act 1976 states that ‘The Theatres Trust exists to
promote the better protection of theatres. It currently delivers statutory
planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use through the Town &
Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) Order
2010 (DMPO), Articles 16 & 17, Schedule 5, para.(w) that requires the
Trust to be consulted by local authorities on planning applications which
include ‘development involving any land on which there is a theatre.’
The council is satisfied that there is
adequate provision of cultural facilities
to support new development and that
these are in easily accessible locations
by public transport and with adequate
road parking. In addition Core Strategy
Policy SC2 states that the council and
its partners will ensure that local
cultural activities and community
facilities are located in the
communities that they serve.
Mark Sims
Due to the specific nature of our remit as above we are concerned with
the protection and promotion of theatres and we do not comment on
allocations except to provide guidance on assessing the best locations
for theatre provision in a town which will support and protect sustainable
theatre use. The Council should be satisfied that there is adequate
provision of cultural facilities to support new development and that these
are in easily accessible locations by public transport and road with
adequate parking.
While I am sure the Council believes it is acting in the best interest of the
people of Bolton, our objections concern:
The
proposal to focus new leisure facilities solely in the area of Bolton centre.
Proposed leisure facilities appear (from my initial reading) to be solely or
predominantly commercial in nature and will therefore exclude a
significant number of members of the community.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: The building of
Centre Parks, if a rumour is true, would increase the traffic and cause
more disruption.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
142
Leisure facilities will not be solely
located in Bolton town centre. Bolton
town centre will, however, be the
principal location for new leisure
development given its good
accessibility by public transport. The
value of Bolton's countryside is also
recognised in the Core Strategy which
allows tourism facilities to be
developed, providing they do not affect
the rural character and open nature of
the countryside. The Allocations plan
protects land outside of Bolton town
centre for leisure use through, for
example, the allocation of recreational
open spaces, the Upland Moorland
Hills, the Croal Irwell Valley, protected
open land, historic parks and gardens
and the Bolton to Bury Strategic Cycle
Route.
There is no current proposal for a
Centre Parcs development
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Steven Wright
2. I note that the Open Cast Coal area of search appears to cover some
of the built up area of the Summerfields housing development (former
Metal Box site) in Westhoughton and as such the area of search should
be removed from the area now developed for residential use.
Minerals areas of search are being
considered by the Greater Manchester
Minerals Plan. The published version
of the Minerals Plan omits areas of
search for opencast coal
Steven Wright
3. It is important that neighbouring uses are taken into account when
considering the extraction of minerals. Since the UDP proposals map
was produced, there has been substantial residential development on the
former Metal Box site which is directly adjacent to much of the Open
Cast Coal area of search to the West (Ditchers Farm) and to the East.
This should be considered as a factor in the allocations document by
either removal of the area of search in this area or by reducing the area
of search to ensure a buffer between the residential uses and any
potential future mineral working (both to the west and east of the former
Metal Box site south of the M61).
I submit the below for your information.
Minerals areas of search are being
considered by the Greater Manchester
Minerals Plan. The published version
of the Minerals Plan omits areas of
search for opencast coal
Diane Clarke
Organisation
Network Rail Town
Planning Team LNW
Network Rail is aware of two development proposals in the Bolton /
Horwich area (but which we did not identify on the schedules from the
council). They are:
1. Bolton Interchange
2. Horwich Loco Works, Red Moss
Network Rail supports the proposed mixed use regeneration of the
former Loco works including the inclusion of its land interests.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
143
Support noted
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Clowes
Transport for Greater
Manchester
The adopted Proposals Map shows a range of on-road and off-road
cycle routes but the revised Proposals Map does not retain these where
either they have already been implemented or there is no funding. The
on-road and off-road cycle routes should be retained on the revised
Proposals Map for the following reasons:
*In accordance with Core Strategy Policies P5 and IPC1, sites should be
developed in ways that encourage greater use of sustainable modes of
travel including cycling and, where appropriate, developers should be
encouraged to contribute to the provision of necessary cycling
infrastructure. If the existing cycling network is not shown developers
may not be aware of it and it may be more difficult to justify financial
contributions towards improving and extending a network that isn't a
proposal i.e. that is not on the proposals map.
*Funding may come forward for improving/extending the cycle network
during the life time of the Development Plan up to 2026. *Bolton
Interchange will include a cycle centre with cycle parking, showers and
changing facilities with the aim of encouraging commuter cycling into
Bolton town centre. Improving or extending the existing cycle network
and improving cycle infrastructure within the town centre, through
developer contributions, could help further encourage commuter cycling
and maximise the effectiveness of this investment.
The sustainability appraisal shows that much of the decision making
around development is because of it be adjacent to good public transport
networks. While this is so, it would not take much extra research to show
that these networks are already stretched and lead to increased
congestion.
Plans to extend the car park at Horwich Parkway and Blackrod can only
lead to more people using Blackrod Station instead of Horwich Parkway
to give them the benefit of maybe actually getting a seat on the train.
More trains/carriages are needed before a larger car park will be of
benefit, therefore pushing people to use their car and increasing the
amount of traffic, co2 and health issues relating to traffic fumes.
Making changes to traffic junctions in the town by adding a cycle box so
that cyclists have an advantage and make themselves visible in a
primary position may help to get people out of their cars and onto their
bikes. This could benefit people not only by being healthier but also by
being able to travel faster than the car in rush hour traffic. Enabling
Bolton Council to give a real reflection on working towards a more
sustainable town and a future for coming generations.
Policies P5 and IPC1 provide an
overall approach on seeking developer
contributions. It is considered more
flexible to consider the need for
financial contributions to be made on a
case by case basis, rather than to
contribute to a less flexible route
network which may not reflect the
needs of the development. The
Proposals Map will however be
amended to protect the line of possible
cycle routes that are not on or adjacent
to roads. If funding for more cycle
routes id become available, then a
reviewed network could be drawn up
outside the development plan process
Vicky Urmston
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
144
The Allocations Plan cannot determine
or influence the number or length of
trains, but does show the location of
proposed fixed transport investment.
Neither can the Allocations Plan
determine the desirability of cycle
boxes at junctions
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Clowes
Transport for Greater
Manchester
Policy P8AP, section 3.46 of the Draft Allocations Plan and the revised
proposals map should be amended to include Hall i' the' Wood rail
station. Transport for Greater Manchester's Rail Station Improvement
Strategy has been developed to deliver quality security, safety and
passenger information systems at 51 smaller rail stations across Greater
Manchester, to improve passenger satisfaction and increase the potential
for modal shift. Hall i' the' Wood rail station has been identified as a
station that would benefit from the provision of CCTV, Customer
Information Screens with up to date train information, public address
systems and help points. Current cots are estimated at £140,000 but
funding has yet to be identified. These infrastructure improvements could
assist in the development of the proposed mixed use allocation on
Crompton Way.
Also the key delivery items on page 17 should be amended. Current
estimated costs of the Horwich Parkway additional car parking scheme
are approximately £510,000 and the scheme is to be completed by 2014.
The Allocations Plan is primarily
concerned with the development of
land, and so it is not appropriate to
identify Hall I'th'Wood on the Proposals
Map as they don't include any
development.
The text about Horwich Parkway
station car park should be amended
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
145
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Hamish
Robertshaw
DTZ on b/h Howarth
Estates
We support Policy P9AP on the ‘Strategic Road Network’ as this should
be safeguarded to accommodate major traffic flows.
The supporting paragraph should be
amended
as
follows'
The Strategic Route Network, shown
on the Proposals Map, comprises
roads that carry the highest volumes of
traffic
and
provide
the
major
connections within the Borough. Some
development sites, including strategic
ones, such as the Cutacre and the
former Horwich Loco Works require
direct connections on to this Network.
By safeguarding these routes from
inappropriate developments that would
increase congestion or reduce road
safety, the council can ensure that the
network provides for the efficient
distribution of goods and the
movement of people. By directing
through traffic onto the network the
council can reduce the problems
associated with traffic passing through
environmentally sensitive areas and
thereby safeguard residential amenity,
promote highway safety and conserve
environmental assets.
However, we object to the supporting text at paragraph 3.51 which we
consider conveys the wrong emphasis regarding development. Whilst
we agree that these routes should be safeguarded from development
that would increase congestion or reduce road safety, sites in proximity
to these routes are most appropriate for large scale industrial, storage
and distribution type development in terms of both operational efficiency
and the protection of residential and other sensitive areas from traffic
problems. As such, this paragraph should make reference to the
suitability of properly planned ‘strategic’ development in such locations
with the agreement of the relevant highways authorities.
We therefore suggest alternative wording to paragraph 3.51 as follows:
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Stephen Hedley
Natural England
Bolton Council
The Strategic Route Network, shown on the Proposals Map, comprises
roads that carry the highest volumes of traffic and provide the major
connections within the Borough. Allocated development sites on these
routes provide strategic locations for new employment development that
requires direct access to the Strategic Route Network. By safeguarding
these routes from inappropriate developments that would increase
congestion or reduce road safety, the council can ensure that the
network provides for the efficient distribution of goods and the movement
of people. By directing through traffic onto the network the council can
reduce the problems associated with traffic passing through
environmentally sensitive areas and thereby safeguard residential
amenity, promote highway safety and conserve environmental assets.
Policy P8AP ‘Railway Development’ is a new Policy and we support this
Policy which promotes the improvement of Horwich Parkway and
Blackrod Stations
In support of walking, cycling and sustainable transport, we welcome
policy P8AP to promote the improvement of Horwich Parkway and
Blackrod railway stations, and also that part of P9AP which states that
the Council will support the development of public transport and
improvements for cyclists in appropriate locations on the strategic route
network.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
146
Support noted
Support noted
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Margaret Collier
Lostock Residents Group
3.41 Many Lostock residents work in Manchester, travelling there either
by train from Lostock Station, or by road along the M61. Both routes are
saturated at peak times.
The development of the former
Horwich Loco Works site has already
been fully addressed in the adopted
Core Strategy. The Core Strategy
demonstrates that direct access to the
M61 is not necessary to allow
development of the site for the
approved uses.
Transport for Greater Manchester
have not identified any funding to
support additional platforms on the
Southport line at Lostock. In the
absence of any funding it is not
appropriate to identify Lostock Station
for improvement.
We therefore believe that the arrangements outlined at 3.41 are too weak
and are a missed opportunity to require that a significant housing
development on the Horwich Loco works site should contribute to a direct
link to the M61, and that a central government requirement for increased
housing should be matched by a responsibility on central government to
ameliorate the consequences on the infrastructure by improving the M61,
one of the most congested of our national motorways.
3.46 Services using Lostock Station have been reduced since the
December 2008 Timetable, resulting in residents using the train having to
make carbon-unfriendly journeys to other stations. Had the Congestion
Charge have been approved, a platform at Lostock Junction would have
been built by 2013 to reconnect the station with the line to Wigan and
Southport.
There is a clearly unmet demand for rail services and connections from
Lostock Station to be improved, preferably to be better than those which
were axed in 2008. We are disappointed that the rail station at Lostock
has not been scheduled for improvement, and there is no mention of the
re-establishment of the rail link at Lostock to the Southport line.
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Bolton Council
Paragraph 3.41 should make it clearer that only the transport related
parts of Core Strategy Policy M2 are being listed here, as the Council
only list 3 of the 8 points within the Core Strategy Policy.
Policy P9AP ‘Strategic Route Network’ is a new Policy, the thrust of
which appears to be to safeguard these routes from development.
Development/redevelopment along these routes is not something that
should be actively prevented, as there may be appropriate mitigation
measures that can be undertaken to alleviate any traffic or safety issues,
or increased future capacity. It is not necessary for this new Policy to be
introduced, over and above, the existing Core Strategy Policies.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
147
Amend the text as requested
Policy P9AP is almost identical to UDP
policy A18 and is not a new policy.
The wording of the supporting text
does not prevent all development
along the SRN
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Linda Challender
Horwich Town Council
There is extreme concern about the impact of additional traffic that will be
generated by the large amount of housing and other development off
Chorley New Road. The roundabout at the Beehive should be the subject
of a traffic management review.
Diane Clarke
Network Rail Town
Planning Team LNW
The Allocations Plan should contain policies on (a) developer
contributions to support rail infrastructure; (b) the impact of development
on the safety of level crossings; (c ) the effects of wind turbines on rail
safety, including the need to consult Network Rail on applications close
to rail lines
This will be addressed at the planning
application stage if sites are allocated
in the final version of the Allocations
Plan. In the case of development at
the former Horwich Loco Works, the
issue of the Beehive roundabout will
be addressed in the Transport
Assessment as part of the planning
application.
The Core Strategy already contains a
policy on developer contributions and it
is unnecessary to include one in the
Allocations Plan. Neither is it
necessary to have specific policies on
level crossings and wind turbines close
to rail lines; these issues will be
addressed in the course of processing
any relevant planning applications, and
assessed against the Core Strategy
policy on compatible uses.
Support noted
Ann Kolodziejski
Sion Owen-Ellis
Bolton Council
The Highways Agency
I support the provision of better cycling infrastructure throughout the
borough, connecting with adjacent local authority areas effectively.
I would like to make an observation relating to the final point 'The
requirement for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan with major trip
generating developments.'
The requirements and guidelines for a Transport Assessment and Travel
Plan for developments is set out in the Guidance on Transport
Assessment (GTA) March 2007.
I would like to reiterate the comments that the Highways Agency made
for the Allocations scope, namely:
The HA notes that there isn't a linkage to the outputs of the Phase 2
Modelling work and how this will feed into the infrastructure plan and its
role in identifying measures that will be required in order to mitigate the
traffic impact of development. We would request that a reference to the
Infrastructure Plan be made within this document.
In section 3.51 there is a reference to the strategic route network. Is this
a reference to the Strategic Route Network (Highways Agency roads) or
just a general reference to strategic routes within Bolton? If it's the latter,
then we would request that a reference to the Strategic Route Network
be made within this section.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
148
The observation on Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans is
noted
The section on transport will be
amended to refer to the Phase 2
modelling work
The Strategic Route Network refers to
the network shown on the Proposals
Map, not just to Highways Agency
roads. For the purposes of Policy
P9AP, there is no difference between
Highways Agency roads and other
roads shown on the Proposals Map,
and so it is not necessary to refer to
them separately.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Connor Vallelly
HOW Planning on b/h of
Horwich Vision
It is noted that draft Policy P9AP – Strategic Road Network seeks to
safeguard these routes from developments that would increase
congestion or reduce road safety. We are concerned that as currently
drafted the text could pose an unnecessary constraint to major
development proposals such as the former Loco Works site.
It is noted that Chorley New Road which is located adjacent to the former
Loco Works site is identified as part of the SRN and therefore this policy
would apply to that part of the network. Core Strategy Policy M2 requires
that the redevelopment of the former Loco Works site should ensure that
additional traffic generated does not result in serious inconvenience or
danger on the public highway. Adopted Core Strategy policy therefore
already provides for the objective of this policy in relation to the former
Loco Works and therefore paragraph 3.51 of the draft DPD should
therefore be removed.
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum: Radcliffe Road is very narrow.
Something needs to be done about this road before any more
development takes place.
Policy P9AP is almost identical to UDP
policy A18 and is not a new policy.
The wording of the supporting text
does not prevent all development
along the SRN. In the case of the
Loco Works, the policies are already
set out in the adopted Core Strategy
and the retention of this policy would
not impose any additional constraints.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: It is disappointing that
within the draft Allocations Plan there is no reference to the
improvement of infrastructure to ease traffic and accessibility. Traffic will
increase and result in more difficulties.
The Core Strategy and Draft
Allocations Plan propose relatively
limited development in Westhoughton
and individual developments will need
to address local traffic implications at
planning application stage.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: Bolton Council should
consider improving infrastructure. As a resident priority is getting in / out
of Westhoughton and safety issues relating to traffic. Developers should
have to invest money in infrastructure. What percentage of section 106
money has come back to Westhoughton?
The Core Strategy and Draft
Allocations Plan propose relatively
limited development in Westhoughton
and individual developments will need
to address local traffic implications at
planning application stage.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: When previous
objections to plans have been made on the basis of traffic issues, these
have been disregarded as the traffic modelling indicates that it would not
be an issue. A request was made for someone to attend a future area
forum to explain how the traffic modelling system works.
The need for a broad location for
employment development at Cutacre
has been established through the
adopted Core Strategy.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
149
Traffic calming measures have already
been introduced in response to the
recently completed social housing
scheme. The need for further
measures will be considered if
planning proposals come forward.
Name
Rachael Bust
Bolton Council
Organisation
The Coal Authority
Comment Summary
Council response
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: Are there any plans
for mineral development in the Lee Hall area?
We have no specific comments to make on the individual proposed
allocations or the handful of policies proposed to accompany them.
We have previously provided Bolton Council with data which identifies
the surface coal resource and mining legacy. Where the Allocations Plan
proposes to allocate new non-mineral surface development over the
surface coal resource it will be necessary to consider the potential for the
prior extraction of the surface coal resource ahead of development in
order to ensure that this is not needlessly sterilised as required by MPS1.
Mining legacy is reasonably extensive across parts of Bolton and as such
it may be present within a number of the proposed allocated sites. The
presence of mining legacy is likely to affect the layout and density of new
development proposals, particularly if mine entries are present. Mining
legacy will also need to be properly remediated as part of new
development which has the potential to impact on the economic
deliverability of sites. Where new development is proposed as
redevelopment or regeneration it is often the case that the mining legacy
may not have been appropriately remediated despite the site being
previously developed.
In many cases where historic shallow workings are present, which is the
dominant form of legacy in Bolton, the removal of the remnant surface
coal resource can be a more cost effective way of addressing mining
legacy than traditional hard engineering solutions. The prior extraction of
remaining surface coal resources can generate additional income for
developers or can be undertaken by a coal operator at nil cost to
developers. Prior extraction would then leave a safe and stable
development platform for future development. Prior extraction can easily
be undertaken within urban areas at a very small scale, it has the
appearance of groundworks and usually takes a matter of weeks or a
couple of months at most.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: There is no guarantee
that the new developments will be for Westhoughton Residents
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: Don't want
Westhoughton to lose its identity.
There are no plans for mineral
development at Lee Hall
Comments noted
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
150
It is not possible to exercise control
over the occupants of new housing.
Core Strategy policy OA3 provides
specific guidance for development in
Westhoughton and this includes
safeguarding its character, especially
the conservation area in the town
centre.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Steve Staines
Friends, Families and
Traveller and Traveller
Law Reform Project
We trust the following format will be acceptable. Our comments are
made in good faith but reference should be made to local Gypsies and
Travellers for comments rooted in local experience which as a national
body we do not have for Bolton. Failure to consult via outreach to this
disadvantaged and hard to reach group could risk any DPD being found
to be unsound. Our response cannot be seen as a suitable alternative to
effective consultation with those directly affected.
A revised approach to addressing the
needs of the travelling community is
being proposed through a separate
DPD which will contain needs figures
and sites if required.
Questions:
2. Response applicable to Gypsies and Travellers
3. Yes this would be in line with current and also merging national policy.
Gypsy and Travellers are no different from any other groups and their
needs have to be planned and provided for in the same way as for
example the general population living in conventional bricks and mortar
accommodation. In our view plans should be made ahead to 2026 - any
changes occurring in the latter part of the plan period can be
accommodated as and when necessary. It would be remiss to plan only
to 2016 given the short period before such a plan would be put of date.
4/5. As to numbers we are relying on the available information which is
principally the RSS Panel Report on the RSS single issue review held in
Manchester in March 2010. The panel report was finished and released
under a FOI request by ourselves. The complete panel report is the only
independent examination of the evidence base for the needs of Gypsies
and Travellers and as such is a material consideration.
The panel report concluded (see Table 7.2) that there was a requirement
for a minimum additional 35 pitches to 2016 giving a total of number of
authorised pitches in 2016 of 61 pitches. The panel report found a need
for five transit pitches within the borough. Using the standard and
accepted family formation rate of 3% compound per annum then needs
to 2026 can be extrapolated from the 61 pitches which should be
available in 2016. This would mean the provision of a further 21 pitches
to take account of future family formation. In our view the council should
plan at a minimum for this level of provision within the borough to make
provision for both residential and transit need.
Obviously we cannot make any comments on the local situation and
again urge the council to put on place arrangements so that local
Gypsies and Travellers can be effectively consulted with.
We would wish to be consulted on this issue when the next stage is
reached.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
151
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Martin Stuart
Wigan Council
The council should be identifying more pitches/plots for gypsies and
travellers/travelling showpeople in the period up to 2021/2026. The
number should be in line with the report into the Partial Review of RSS
and should consist of a mix of permanent and transit pitches.
A revised approach to addressing the
needs of the travelling community is
being proposed through a separate
DPD which will contain needs figures
and sites if required.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
152
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Alice de la Rue
Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison
Group
Please confirm which of the travelling communities your response is
applicable to. Gypsy and Travellers Do you think the council as local
planning authority should be identifying more pitches/plots for gypsies
and travellers/travelling showpeople in the period up to 2016/2026? Yes
If you do think more pitches/plots should be identified, please indicate a
number for gypsies and travellers/travelling showpeople up to
2016/2026. Please explain your reasons and indicate any evidence that
helps to support your view below: The Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) for the area (the Gypsy and
Traveller Accommodation and Service Needs in Greater Manchester
2007/8) found that there was a shortfall of 42 pitches in Bolton to 2015.
The draft North West panel report recommended that a minimum of 35
additional pitches were needed to 2016, plus 5 transit pitches. As part of
the partial review of the North West Plan, the Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Assessments went through rigorous scrutiny and
testing, and this report is the best resource for identifying ways forward.
Where redistribution of pitches has been proposed, then either
partnership working must take place to ensure sufficient pitches are
delivered, or the redistributive element must be discounted (so need is
met where it arises). Since the evidence base was completed some time
ago, then it is also important to ensure that the GTAA is reviewed to take
into account changes in circumstances (for example, the large scale
eviction of Travellers at Dale Farm in Essex is just one example where
families are being moved around the country and whose needs have not
been accounted for). However in the absence of other information, then a
3% compound growth rate should be applied to gain an estimate to plan
for. I am not entirely clear why these accommodation figures were not
included in the adopted Core Strategy, and whether or not they have
already been through debate as part of that process. It would seem a
vast waste of resources to be starting from scratch with these numbers,
not to mention the delay to providing accommodation to meet an
evidenced need. If you are suggesting more pitches/plots are these
required to address current overcrowding or to accommodate new
growth in the size of the travelling communities? Please explain your
reasons below: Both, since both these elements are included in the
GTAA, and the GTAA clearly indicates that there is both an existing
shortfall and a future need arising. If you are suggesting more pitches for
the gypsy and traveller community are these permanent pitches or
should a mixture of permanent and transit sites be considered? Please
explain your reasons below: Permanent pitches should take priority over
A revised approach to addressing the
needs of the travelling community is
being proposed through a separate
DPD which will contain needs figures
and sites if required.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
153
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
transit provision, though there may be a need for both. Transit sites must
not be provided as an alternative to permanent sites as they fulfil a
different role. The council is keen to understand the main working areas
and travel patterns of travelling showpeople. Information from 2007 was
put to the Regional Spatial Strategy examination by travelling
showpeople and this is available through the council's Allocations Plan
webpage. Is this information still relevant and how should the council
take it or more up to date information into account in assessing the right
balance between future provision in Bolton and surrounding areas?
Please explain your reasons and any other evidence we should consider
below: This question needs to be answered in close consultation with the
Showman's Guild and Travelling Showpeople. Are there any other key
issues that are likely to affect the need for provision for gypsies and
travellers or the travelling showpeople community over the next 10 to 15
years? Please add any comments below: As noted above, provision
nationally has been much slower to come forward than envisaged. The
study by Equalities and Human Rights Commission 'Assessing local
authorities' progress in meeting the accommodation needs of Gypsy and
Traveller communities in England and Wales: 2010 update' included the
following findings: Across England as a whole, taking into account all
pitch changes - social and private, temporary and permanent
permissions - it will take about 16 years to meet five-year requirements at
the rate of progress achieved in 2006-09. If pitches provided with
temporary or personal planning consent are excluded this could be
extended to about 27 years (EHRC, 2010, pg viii) Fifty-seven per cent, or
135 authorities providing full information, showed either a zero or a
negative change in pitch numbers in 2006-09. Excluding pitches provided
through temporary or personal planning permissions, 68 per cent of
authorities made no net gain in pitch numbers (EHRC, 2010, pg ix) The
main conclusion is that the overall rate of progress on site provision
needs to increase more than fivefold to meet the five-year pitch shortfall,
where pitches are provided with permanent planning permissions
(EHRC, 2010, pg x) Accommodation needs must be met nationwide, and
since this isn't happening, then it is important to see where changes have
occurred. Only one round of GTAAs have been completed, and many of
these were flawed (as highlighted in the panel reports of the North West
and South East) and assumptions have yet to be tested. The shortage of
pitches and sites is getting worse, not better, as the backlog of unmet
needs continues to grow across the country. Do you have any specific
sites in mind for additional pitches/plots? No Do you have any other more
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
154
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
general comments about identifying sites? For example is there an
optimum site size and number of pitches/plots on them? Are there
particular areas of the borough which would be preferred or other key
factors that could be used to identify appropriate sites? Yes If yes please
provide any comments below: Small, private family sites tend to be
preferred.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
155
Council response
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kenneth Holt
Garthmere (Site 48sc): The site would turn a quiet cul-de-sac into a busy
feeder road. A lot of woodland would be lost
Kristina Moss
Garthmere Road (48SC): Following my recent objection to the planning
allocation proposed on Garthmere Rd, Atherton, I would like to know the
following...
*How many houses are proposed?
*What kind/style of houses are planned? Are they of a traditional style in
keeping with the existing properties?
*Where will the access be to the proposed site?
*The drains on Garthmere are particularly bad, how do you plan to
address this with extra housing? And how will this affect my home?
*Is this a greenbelt area, I was under the impression it was?
*Has parking been considered for the houses? Under no circumstances
would I want the extra cars parking on Garthmere, it is a narrow road and
the young children who already live in the houses play out...that was the
appeal of buying on a quiet cul de sac?
*Why can these houses not be put onto the cut acre site?
*How much money does the council stand to make by approving this
planning application?
*Do any of your planning councillors live on Garthmere without my
knowledge and are still in favour? I doubt this very much.
*Why have I only found out about these proposals by accident? Why
have residents not been consulted from the outset? This will have a
major impact on our day to day lives and I am opposed to this going
ahead as are the other residents on Garthmere.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
156
Name
Organisation
Gloria Rushton
Paul Sedgwick
Bolton Council
Sedgwick Associates
Comment Summary
Council response
Garthmere (Site 48sc): The proposed development is protected by
mature trees and access by a narrow road, which would cause serious
problems by the extra volume of traffic, should further houses be built. It
would be an eye sore and spoil the whole character of this area.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Support noted
Astley Lane (38SC): This Draft Allocations Plan (DAP) Consultation
Response is written with regard the site edged red on the attached plan.
The site forms part of DAP Housing Site ref: 014. The proposed
allocation is supported. The site is disused, deliverable housing land. It is
available for housing development now, offers a suitable location for
housing development now and there is a good prospect that housing will
be delivered within five years.
The site is controlled by our clients, Hollins Strategic Land and as such,
there are no legal or ownership problems. Hollins Strategic Land has
expressed an interest to develop; preapplication discussions have already
taken place with the LPA and the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer.
Pre-application discussions confirmed that there are no policy restrictions
to be overcome.
Research undertaken by Hollins Strategic Land in preparation for an
application demonstrates that there are no physical problems or
limitations that would prevent the development of the site. Development
of the site would have no adverse impacts on the environmental
conditions in the area or on the amenities of neighbouring residents. It is
also demonstrable that the site is in a highly sustainable location:
Hollins Strategic Land has already secured the interest of a developer for
the site. There are no market, cost or delivery factors that would prevent
the development coming forward in the next 5 years. The site is
therefore deliverable when assessed against the requirements of
‘SHLAA Practice Guidance’. Its allocation for housing is therefore
supported.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
157
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Astley Lane (38SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor along Dan
Brook and as such should be protected under Core Strategy policy CG2.
The primary function of wildlife
corridors is to provide a network of
urban open land to support habitats
and species. They comprise open
areas and also include, as in this case,
watercourses or tree lined routes.
Development will have to ensure that
continuity of the corridor is not
affected. In this case a corridor which
includes at least the Astley Brook and
its banks will always remain open.
Comments noted. The Allocations
Plan is concerned with the future
identification of sites and its land use,
ownership and detailed mechanisms of
housing delivery are beyond the scope
of this plan.
David Kirk
Judith Nelson
Bolton Council
English Heritage
Back Bury Road South, Breightmet (59sc): I don't object in principle to
any building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is
gifted into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very affordable category giving them
the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passive haus standard
below so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that
can easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to
these possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the
home the home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that
the industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to
build 4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes
would cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our
opinion is the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as
they too try to make a life for themselves in a system they never
designed in a world where every town needs real examples of low
carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this
opportunity to really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this
standard, provide local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful
employment that is so desperately needed in the town.
Beehive Mill is listed. What appraisal process has been undertaken to
help inform decisions on the balance between conservation,
refurbishment and re-use or demolition and new build.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
158
The mill is in a well established
commercial use.
Name
Barry Jubb
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Berne Avenue, Horwich (site 121sc): I object to the development of this
Amenity Greenspace because of all the legislation that would be
contravened in order to do so. In fact I cannot understand why the
strategic planners have the temerity to propose such schemes when
Bolton MBC lacks a comprehensive Greenspace Strategy, as other
boroughs in the locale do. Likewise, how can this be proposed with the
“Lack of a Robust Greenspace Audit” (Helen Williams, Planning Dept.)
as “The councils 2007 is now out of date” (Helen Williams, Planning
Dept.)
And of course there are your Key negative effects to overturn: 7.7 There are some allocations proposed on sites of recreational open
space and playing fields. Overall these sites do not score highly in the
sustainability appraisal for health and wellbeing, neighbourhood quality
and green infrastructure. This is due to the loss of recreational green
space, reducing opportunities for exercise. Availability and proximity to
green spaces has one of the biggest impacts on increasing physical
activity levels. Green spaces are essential to provide green lungs and
help to mitigate air pollution and associated respiratory diseases.
Reduction in urban green spaces and trees could result in a loss of
biodiversity and key recreation areas?
Berne Avenue (121SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very affordable category giving them the confidence and
powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings be
built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
159
Comments noted. Core Strategy
policy CG1 allows development on
informal greenspace within the urban
area provided it allows for
improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. The Allocations
Plan is concerned with the future
identification of sites and its land use,
ownership and detailed mechanisms of
housing delivery are beyond the scope
of this plan.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Anthony Ambrose
It is the thin end of the wedge to lose Blackrod Community Centre for
housing development. The next thing to go would be the playing fields
(because of the loss of changing facilities). We pay extra on our rates for
this facility and to have it taken away would be theft.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Armstrong
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): My daughter aged 3 goes to the
playgroup at the community centre. She has been attending since the
age of 2. I have also had another little girl and would love to send her
there. This would be a real shame to lose such a valuable asset to the
community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
160
Name
Albert & Helen
Ashurst
Pauline Ashworth
Emma Ashworth
Deborah
Ashworth
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Not long ago the planning
application for a religious centre on this land was denied. Why is it now
necessary to fill in one of the few remaining open spaces in Blackrod
especially with more houses? Or was this lucrative plan already in the
pipeline?
The area is already congested on a daily basis from 07.00 to
approximately 09.15 as residents try to make their way to work. On
leaving Blackrod and joining the traffic on the A6 it can take over 20
minutes to reach the motorway, a distance of approximately two miles.
I am sure with a little investment to bring the community centre facilities
up to date they would be used more frequently for lots of events in
addition to the one using it at present, and be more beneficial to the
community than more houses and more traffic.
I object to houses being built on the site of the Blackrod Community
Centre as it is used for social aspects of our village life. I have
grandchildren that use the building everyday. I also use the community
centre on a Tuesday evening for keep fit classes. If it was not there I
would have to travel to Lostock for my keep fit class.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
The community centre is the hub of the village, this is the only place
where everybody can get together. It would be a great blow to the village
if it was lost.
The Community Centre is used by Blackrod Play Group. My little boy
goes and I have a two month old baby who I would like to go. They have
just celebrated 30 years. Other young people use the centre as well as
other groups.
More houses
mean more families. The schools are already full and there will be more
cars on the roads. We need our community centre for our future
children's leisure and activities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
161
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Rosemary Avison
Anthony Avison
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
162
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Joan Bailey
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
163
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Anne Banks
Patricia Barrow
Bolton Council
The Blackrod Community centre is the ONLY facility in the village open
to ALL residents regardless of age. IT IS OPEN and USED
REGULARLY. My children benefit from the busy and highly-attended
karate club held there 3 times a week. They both attended the excellent
play group (a business which would struggle to find an alternative venue
within the village) prior to attending school and we have all used it as a
family in the community based 'fun weekends' in the summer. It is
integral to village life; the Blood donation service, Over 70's Christmas
party, Scarecrow weekend, slimming clubs, dance classes, Polling
Station are but a few of the events held there over a year.
To build houses on this site is unacceptable, it removes from the village
the only large venue/facility that is USED!
To build on the football field removes facilities for Blackrod Town FC, part
of our village's identity and cultural pride. Other fields in the village are
unacceptable to purpose as there are drainage issues at the school
nearby.
The playground is the ONLY (poor quality) playground for parents and
young children within a 30 min walk. This backs onto a road with lots of
young children who will be deprived their ONLY safely-accessible play
area.
Does Blackrod really need 39 (or more) houses, both schools are fullysubscribed in KS1and would need extensions to accommodate any rise
in numbers.
Finally, little way down from the junction of Vicarage Rd and Manchester
Rd, in an easterly direction, is constricted due to parking on Manchester
Rd. This is already a bottle-neck and will only deteriorate with added cars
and traffic flow.
How can you consider this as a viable proposal? I find the idea that, as
there is not an actual derelict/ vacant brownfield site to use, we'll just
knock down something that is part of a community's facilities totally
unbelievable and outrageous!
The Blackrod Community Centre is well used everyday and night. It is
constantly booked up. It is the only place to hold a village function.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
164
Council response
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
John Barrow
The Blackrod Community Centre is well used everyday and night. It is
constantly booked up.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Brian Barrow
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I object to the loss of another local
amenity. There are lots of unsold properties In Blackrod. The lack of
shops parking and other amenities would not support a further
development, the council have just closed the very school that may have
provided support. The increased volume of traffic in and out of the village
would swamp the existing through route , hence the chaos when traffic
from the A6 was diverted through the village during a recent resurfacing
project.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I would like to make an objection to
the above plans. I do not feel the community centre in Blackrod should
be replaced by houses simply for financial reasons. There is a wonderful
playgroup which runs from the community centre and a karate club which
runs on a Saturday. Many children and young people have loved
attending these session over the years. A community centre is at the
heart of any village or town and should not simply be replaced in order to
make profit.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Karen Barry
Melissa Bateson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
165
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Sam Beard
Sarah Bell
Bolton Council
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Blackrod has little facilities as it is without taking the Community Centre
and football pitch. The schools are already overcrowded without adding
more houses. Blackrod needs a decent park for our children before even
thinking about knocking down the community centre where our playgroup
has been for 30 years now.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
166
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kim Bell
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Playgroup has been open for 30
years and is the only cheap childcare, with the best care in the village.
When we have something good for the children you take it away.
Christine Bennett
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This centre is used for lots of things
and there isn't much else in Blackrod. Its would be devastating to close it
down.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Billington
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I totally object to pulling down the
community centre and building council houses on the playing fields!
Children and adults regularly use these field for football etc. You go on
about obesity then want to build on the places where they get there
exercise.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shaun Blackmore
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this proposed
allocation.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Residents of
Blackrod (869)
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): We object to the demolition of
the Community Centre and Football Field
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
167
Name
Caroline Bliss
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I write to you in connection with the plans for Blackrod Community
Centre as laid out in the LDF consultation document. I am a user of the
Community Centre and was both dismayed to hear of the plans and
disappointed in the manner in which myself and other Community Centre
users discovered the plans via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
168
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
169
Council response
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Thomas
Boardman
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The Community Centre is used for
various functions on a regular basis i.e. fitness classes, karate, dancing
and a nursery. The football team use it for changing.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Matthew Booth
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this proposed
allocation.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Jane Boyce
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This community centre is an
essential resource for the local community, offering affordable
accommodation to many local groups. This type of proposal would rip the
heart out of small local communities isolating the less well off and elderly.
I accept that affordable housing is required but not at such a high cost to
our way of life.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Martin Boyce
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I object to the proposal to
redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for residential purposes. The
community centre is an essential resource for the people of Blackrod
hosting a wide range of community groups delivering key activities and
support to the community. This site is not the only land in Blackrod for
which development has been proposed therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst we acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns these are not accessible to
many residents including the elderly, young and those reliant on public
transport. I would like the council to reconsider the proposal on both
grounds set out above and in light of the objectives of central
government who have made an express commitment to the delivery of
services by the third and voluntary sectors at a local and community
level. Without the infrastructure to support them then community groups
such as those which use the community centre will not be able to operate
and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the residents of
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
170
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod.
Stephen Brierley
Bolton Council
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): 1. Closure of Community Centre
used by several community groups. 2 Increased traffic. 3 Not enough
schools for new tenants
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
171
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Johanne
Brightwell
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I want to register my objection to
the plans to build new houses in Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod is not like any other borough in Bolton, it is a village and has a
real community feel and spirit, we do not want or need any further
building projects in the village.
I live near the proposed site at Shawbury Close so your plans for
development will directly affect me. This piece of land is not appropriate
or suitable for development, it will have a detrimental effect on the area
and on people living directly around the site. It is only a small piece of
land which is currently used by children to play and is also enjoyed by
dog walkers. We have access to very few pieces of green space, please
don’t take them away from us.
There has already been a lot of private development in Blackrod over the
years and the infrastructure of the village just won't take anymore. We
only have one main road through the village so more housing would have
a significant impact on the roads and parking. You also have to look at
the impact on schools, we only have two primary schools in the village
and these are already over subscribed as is the local High School. We
also only have a small health centre so accessing health services would
be made more difficult.
Steven Brightwell
Bolton Council
I really hope you reconsider your plans to develop this site.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
The community centre is the hub of the village, this is the only place
where everybody can get together. It would be a great blow to the village
if it was lost.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
172
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Steven Brightwell
Jackie Brindle
Muriel Bromelow
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This piece of land is not suitable for
development as it will have a detrimental effect on the area and on
people living directly around the site. It is currently used by children to
play and is also enjoyed by dog walkers. There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the proposal to
redevelop Blackrod community centre for residential purposes. The
community centre is an essential resource for the people of Blackrod
hosting a wide range of community groups, delivering key activities and
support to the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
I object to the proposal to develop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns these are not accessible to many residents including the
elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the ground set
out above and in the light of the objective of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at a local and community level. Without the
infrastructure to support them then community groups such as those
which use the community centre will not be able to operate and these
valuable resources and services will be lost to the residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre is the only place for children to play or
exercise in. Why do the council always want to take from Blackrod? The
only bit of pleasure we have is the community centre. We have nothing in
this village, not even a regular bus service.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
173
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Willian Buchanan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
174
Name
Marie Buckley
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I write to you in connection with the plans for Blackrod Community
Centre as laid out in the LDF consultation document. I am a user of the
Community Centre and was both dismayed to hear of the plans and
disappointed in the manner in which myself and other Community Centre
users discovered the plans via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
175
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
176
Council response
Name
Julie Burrows
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I wish to object to the proposed
closure and demolition of the community centre and playing field. This is
a much needed village amenity, particularly for the youngsters in the
area.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Alan Bury
Blackrod is a small town. As things stand there is very little to do here. It
is not an exaggeration to say that the loss of the community centre and
the services that it supplies to the community would be a catastrophe.
The Community Centre and surrounding land is used by a variety of
groups covering a broad demographic section of the town. Football,
dancing, and karate are just a few of the activities that regularly take
place on this site. The proposal to replace what is essentially the social
heart of the town with additional housing is a nonsense.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
In addition, since the town's third school was shut down the remaining
schools cannot accommodate the existing number of children in the
town. More houses and (it is to be assumed) more children will place an
intolerable strain upon the already limited facilities.
Elizabeth
Caldwell
Bolton Council
If this is the way that Bolton Council would like to administer the running
of the Blackrod Community Centre then I would like to propose the
possibility of the management being taken over by a Blackrod residents
organisation.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is one essential resource for
the people of Blackrod, hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
177
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Caldwell
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the sale of land at
Blackrod Community Centre for development as it is a well used and
much needed resource for young and old. It keeps young kids off the
street at night, has multi-purpose use and is much needed.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Diane Calvert
Blackrod Community centre is used every day as a nursery, karate club,
fitness club and by football clubs. Blackrod youth play football on the
football field. Blackrod community centre is a polling centre and is used
for the scarecrow festival. Bolton Council refused the Jehovah's Witness
church in 2009 so why should 39 houses be built on the same land? Two
public footpaths run through the land. There are 43 mature trees on the
football field and 60 trees in the millennium garden, which support a vast
amount of bird and wildlife. Why haven't the residents of Lymbridge
Drive, Blackrod, been consulted?
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sandra Chan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
178
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Joy Charlesworth
I object to the closure of Blackrod Community Centre, it is used on a
daily basis. It is a lifeline for the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ronald Chinn
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): It is one of the few facilities in
Blackrod. It is used for pensioners and their Christmas party. The way
things are going, Blackrod will be a ghost town . For building on the
football pitches where are the children going t play? There will be more
obese children than ever.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ian Clarkson
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this proposed
allocation.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sandra Cornwell
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): is an important part of the
community. There is not a need for further residential homes in Blackrod.
The community centre serves the current community well and provides
accommodation for the playgroup and various other activities and has
been a pillar in the community of Blackrod for a number of years.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Eileen Coyle
The closure of Blackrod Community Centre would deprive the people
who use it regularly of a valuable part of their lives- various
organisations, classes etc. No other hall of that size, with easy access, is
available to the residents of Blackrod. I strongly object to the proposed
closure.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
179
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ronald Crispin
Blackrod Community Centre was built by the people of Blackrod and
belongs to them. Bolton Council should plough back some of the high
council tax it levies, instead of trying to further damage our environment.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Nicola Crompton
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The centre is for people to meet
up and enjoy.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Christopher
Crompton
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Community centre where people
are able to meet up.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sam Cullen
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): Blackrod has a great sense of
community, and if the plans for developing the site at the community
centre and the green space go ahead, it would take this away. I
understand that when this particular estate was built, a condition of the
build was that the park should be developed as amenity land. Without
this the house builders would not have gained planning permission, so
how can Bolton Council change their minds now?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Minnie Cullen
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): Please don't build on our
froggy Park.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
180
Name
Gary Cullen
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The Community Centre also plays
an important role in the local community with many groups using it for a
wide range of activities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Is it not a policy of our present Government to encourage a 'Big Society'
and to nurture strong community spirit? I would say that development of
EITHER of these sites goes completely against this as a policy, but also
as an ideal which many people would support.
Cunliffe
I do hope that alternative sites can be found for this housing and that the
areas mentioned above can be maintained for the existing community in
the manner in which they were originally intended to.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): We the residents of 347
Manchester Road Blackrod object to any building on the land at the back
(125SC) The children from this area use the field every day in summer
for football etc. It is the only place for them. It was called the park years
ago. Had swings, see-saw etc., but these were removed.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ann Cunliffe
Blackrod Community Centre is well use, being the only one in Blackrod.
It is used by all of Blackrod, both the building and the field. The site is
used for organised sporting events on a regular bases, especially by the
children of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Lenard Curwen
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are no apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
181
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Edward Curwen
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are not apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Gillian Curwen
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are no apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Alice Curwen
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are no apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
182
Name
Derbyshire
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (sc123): I wish to object to the proposal to
demolish the Community Centre, Blackrod and build 39 properties.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is currently used on a weekly basis by a Keep Fit
class, a Rosemary Conley class, Martial Arts classes and Jehovah's
Witness group, but most importantly on a daily basis by Blackrod Play
Group (this Play Group has recently celebrated 30 years of working with
the very young children of the village). The Draft Allocations Plan does
not mention any of these and the regular use by various groups/classes
is proof that the Community Centre is a popular and necessary asset to
the village and its residents, thus making demolition and housing
development totally unacceptable.
A few years ago Scot Lane School was closed because it was alleged
that there were not enough pupils to keep it open. Now Bolton Council
say there is a shortage of school places within the borough, including
Blackrod. Why build houses in areas where there are insufficient places?
If a new school is built on the Horwich Loco Works site, then surely infant
and junior school children would not be expected to attend, unless of
course transport were to be provided - not every parent/carer has access
to a car.
Michelle Devine
Bolton Council
The Draft Allocations Plan for Blackrod must be reconsidered very
carefully and only viable sites such as the soon to be closed Nightingale
Farm Recycling Plant in Blackhorse Avenue should be considered for
possible housing
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
183
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Roy Dickinson
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The centre is needed for the
playgroup, clubs and social occasions. There are not enough alternative
facilities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Vivien Dickinson
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): Facilities, open spaces and
parking spaces are already very limited in Blackrod and now plans are
being made to take away one of the things Blackrod has. Every
community needs a community centre. It is an essential part of the
village - used daily by a very popular and successful playgroup and
regularly by other groups such as slimming, karate, football, blood
donors etc. Where will all these people go if this facility is taken away?
The heart of a community can't be ripped out. More facilities will stretch
what little facilities there already are, especially if one is taken away.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This facility is used by the way the
community of Blackrod so why would the Council wish to get rid of it?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Dolan
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
184
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Mavis Drinkwater
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Closing amenities for young people
and old. As we haven't got much of a bus service not much chance to go
anywhere else.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sam Eglin
Blackrod Community Centre is well used and would be missed greatly.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Alan & Eileen
Ellison
The proposed demolition of the Blackrod Community Centre will reduce
the already limited facilities in the village. If this site is used for even
more housing the already over subscribed schools would be stretched
beyond their limits.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Glenda Fairhurst
Closing Blackrod Community Centre would cause the following
problems:
*Playgroup have used the centre for 30 years, other groups also use the
facility and also the playing fields.
*There are no spaces available at both primary schools, children from
Blackrod are having to go to school outside the village.
*More
traffic on roads which are too narrow.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Harry Fairhurst
Blackrod Community Centre is used every day and most nights for the
community e.g. play group, karate club, slimming club, dancing, church
services, election day, blood donors and football team using the fields
and changing rooms. If you take all this away our young people will have
no facilities. There is no room in either Blackrod School.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
185
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Linda Fairhurst
Blackrod Community Centre, Blackrod (site 123sc): My three year old
son uses this well run, community orientated playgroup. The whole idea
behind the "Big Society" is to encourage community working. This hall is
used for all ages including Karate, diet clubs, fund raising events as well
as the much used, affordable "play group" facility. I personally think it is
necessary for this centre to remain and continue to provide a much
needed and appreciated function to the Blackrod community and beyond.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Stephen Fairhurst
Blackrod Community Centre, Blackrod (site 123sc): I have lived in
Blackrod for over 25 years. My three year old son uses the play group a
few mornings each week. The play group is one of the best around due
to its size and accessibility for both parents and young children. I do not
agree that the centre should be demolished and replaced with housing
as this would also reduce the quality of life for all Blackrod residents.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Amanda
Farrimond
I have been a local in Blackrod for 39 years and the community centre is
at the heart of the village. It is widely used for playgroup, karate, football,
OAP parties and keep fit to name a few. If the village lost this centre it
would be a tragic loss to everyone, old and young. It would make many
many locals very sad and angry.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Robert Farrington
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): It is a vital part of the village.
Nursery daily, football etc. It could be used more if cheaper
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Robert Feakin
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): is an outstanding place where
young and old people alike can congregate and make use of the hall, it
supplies karate self defence lessons for everyone from the partly
disabled to teenagers and adults.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
186
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Michael Flatters
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The site proposed in this plan is
vital to the local community for sport, leisure and education (pre school
play school) an essential part of children's formative years.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Russell Forbes
I object to the proposed development of Blackrod Community Centre as
it is an essential resource to the residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Elaine Forester
Blackrod Community Centre and surrounding area provide an essential
service for the local community. The community centre is well used by
the local community and it would be a travesty to get rid of it. We do not
need additional housing especially now that Scot Lane School has been
closed down.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
David Forester
Blackrod Community Centre, as the name suggests, is an integral and
vital part of the community. There is not a day goes by that it is not
utilised.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Angela Forshaw
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): More housing, more people yet
this will mean less recreational space and loss of community centre. I
use the community centre once a week, my son attended preschool
there, as a family we attend the summer fete each year. Rather than a
loss of community space this area needs to be developed for the existing
community. Coffee shop, youth club, exercise classes, car boot, indoor
kids play area, please don't knock it down.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
187
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Natasha Gandy
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC) is used by my dad and cousin for
training. Closing the centre means that they will have to find a different
place to train. It will also be a big loss to the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Aaron Gandy
My dad trains (karate) at Blackrod Community Centre and I go watching.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
May Gandy
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My son does karate at the centre
and I sometimes go and watch him, and this would stop for both of us if
you closed the centre.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Paul Gandy
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I attend karate at the centre with
my niece. The loss of the centre would mean that I have to find a
different place to train. Also all the local community would have nowhere
to go for dances etc.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Susan Gandy
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I think it’s a disgrace to pull down
a hall that is used by the young and elderly as a meeting place. My
husband and niece use the hall. The council need to take a look at all the
derelict buildings that are out there and spend their time and effort on
these rather than keep building more new houses, and in the process
taking away a hall that is used by the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
188
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Dilys Garrity
Blackrod needs more amenities not less. The community centre needs a
facelift but is well used.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sabrina Gibson
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sarah Gilligan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
189
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
James Gilligan
Bolton Council
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
190
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Joanne Gilligan
Tanya Gilligan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
191
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Terence Gilligan
Denise Gilligan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
192
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Peter Gilligan
Sandra Gilligan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
193
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
I was dismayed to see that Blackrod Community Centre made it onto the
draft Allocations Plan without anybody even bothering to check first
whether this facility was in use. In the words of the plan: "Uncertain
whether community centre is in use".
This amenity is a valuable and much needed village facility. The
Community Centre is a central part of the village and is utilised on a daily
basis by several groups and classes, catering for a wide range of ages
and needs. Blackrod Playgroup, Blackrod Karate Club, Blackrod Over
60's group to name a few all rely on the centre. The Community Centre
also provides a hub during community activities, such as the annual
Scarecrow Festival, or regular blood doning sessions. The adjacent
playing fields are used for recreation, and for weekly football training.
Blackrod Community Centre has been at the heart of this village for as
long as I have lived here, and it is simply wrong to believe that you can
develop communities by taking away the facilities that bring a community
together.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The many activities and benefits
to the local community would be lost. Another quick fix - sell land.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Jade Goodwin
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this proposed
allocation.
Stephen Gornall
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): To replace the community centre
with houses rips the heart out of the community. As a user of the centre it
would be a great loss, plus the loss of playing fields and open land, not to
mention the environmental issue of more traffic on the road. I know for a
fact the centre is used every day for nursery so it would also deprive
local children of the chance to begin their education in a lovely friendly
environment.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Darren Glover
Keith Goodwin
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
194
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Gornall
Tyrone Grant
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The centre is at the heart of the
community. To take this away will have an impact on all locals of every
walk of life and age. To replace it with houses doesn’t necessarily help
everyone, it leaves generations lacking local facilities where they can
meet and participate in sports and social activities, resulting in less
contact with other people.
The impact on the environment is huge, depriving people of the
opportunity to see green land and breath fresh air. Pollution will increase
with the volume of traffic and also the carbon imprint from the increase of
people living in a relatively small area.
With additional houses, averaging 4/5 people mostly with children, there
will be over-crowding in local schools, impacting on the education of the
existing children and future generations of children whose parents have
been born and bred in the area.
The increased traffic will naturally increase accidents and opportunities
for crime making the area a less appealing place to live, which will result
in decreased in house prices in an already volatile housing market.
Everyone should have the opportunity to use what is already there. This
shouldn't be taken away without due consideration to peoples personal,
social and physical needs simply to line the pockets of property
developers. Listen to the people of the community and others who have
been given the opportunity and privilege of using Blackrod's Community
Centre and local facilities.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would increase
the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the primary
community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are community
resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many
residents including the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds set
out above and in light of the objectives of Central Government who have
made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the third and
voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without infrastructure to
support them, community groups such as those which use the community
centre will not be able to operate and these valuable resources and
services will be lost to the residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
195
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
I run over 50s Health & Exercise Classes in different communities using
church halls and community centres. I have been holding a class at
Blackrod Community Centre every week for over seven years. This is a
well used centre with a host of activities for the people of Blackrod. If the
centre were to close I am sure it would make a big difference to
the young and older residents of Blackrod. I would have to move out of
Blackrod as it is very difficult to find halls big enough to exercise in these
days.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): We need a place for our children
to do karate. We need a playgroup in Blackrod as there are very few
venues. We also need the community centre for all other organisations.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Martin Green
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the Blackrod
Community Centre redevelopment on several grounds:
*The centre is well used, in good order and well situated.
*Additional housing would increase traffic congestion and pollution in an
area that is already built up.
*This is my local karate group and provides me with opportunities for my
little girl to attend activities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Simon Green
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Is extra housing really needed in
Blackrod? The infrastructure couldn't cope, the roads are busy enough
now. The community centre serves the playgroup, martial arts and OAP
groups. With the fields, where are the children going to play?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Pauline
Greenhaulgh
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The building is well maintained and
obviously very well used. Without this amenity Blackrod Village would be
the poorer for it. I believe it to be an essential part of the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Jenifer Green
Melanie Green
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
196
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Aafreen Haji
Ismail
Alan Hargreaves
Lisa Harrison
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre is a tremendous asses to the village
community and has been since 1973. More housing and fewer facilities is
not the answer for village life. I have resided in Blackrod since 1969 and
seen myself and family use this facility throughout this time for many and
various activities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): My children have/had attended
the playgroup that runs out of the community centre. We have already
seen 1 playgroup close to see another close would have an impact to the
children in the area. We have no parks that are appearing in other
boroughs within Bolton, for them to play at, so attending this group helps
bring out the potential in children to play and interact with others. Also
Blackrod has no other community facilities that other organisations can
use - football clubs, Karate, venue for people to have functions. Is the
way for the council to make money instead of spending money in the
upkeep of the facility? Where is Bolton’s motto – Keeping within the
Family etc. Also is Blackrod seen as a money making borough and not
a place to invest in. Our parks are negated in the upgrading, we are a
growing community in the sense new families are moving to the area as
older generations are moving on. Having no facilities for events, groups,
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
197
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
etc to use what kind of environment are the council portraying. We are
aware the community centre is declining but has the council thought of
generating the facility that allows the community to take advantage and
use instead of going to other boroughs that seem to have everything.
Suzanne Hartop
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre and football
field are well used facilities that are at the heart of the village.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Andrew Hartop
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre and football
field are well used facilities that are at the heart of the village.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Siobhan Harvey
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod, hosting a wide range of community groups and
delivering key activities and support to the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Martin Harvey
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this happening. It is for
the community and should not be redeveloped for housing. There are
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
198
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
lots of groups that use the centre, what will happen to these?
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Tracey Harvey
I would like to object to the proposal to knock down Blackrod Community
Centre to build houses on. Why take away a centre that people use?
There will be nothing left soon to keep the community spirit alive. This is
disgusting and should not happen.
Ryan Harvey
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is one essential resource for
the people of Blackrod, hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. It is an essential resource for the local community
for a wide range of groups delivering activities & support to the
community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ian Hawkrigg
Academy of Okinawan Go
Ju Ryu Karate
Other developments are also planned for the area, Why, when
population of the town will be increasing would the key local resource be
closed?
Although other resources may be available in other local towns, this
option does not apply equally to those both young and old, who may not
have direct access to their own transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal on the grounds set out
above but also in the light of the stated objectives of central government
who have stated that they want local services delivered by the third and
local sectors at local community level. Without infrastructure such as the
community centre, how can this possibly happen? These services and
resources will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
199
Name
Gemma
Haywood
Alison Hendley
James Heyes
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): The Community Centre is used
for all different organisations in the village. I run the playgroup and if we
didn’t have the centre we would have nowhere to go. We have 26
children per morning, who all live in the village. I also support the other
users who use the centre.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My children go there and to close
it would leave them nowhere to go.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
200
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Gaynor Heyes
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My 2 children have karate lessons
in the community centre, and if this was to be demolished it would be
difficult finding somewhere else.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Jean Hibbert
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I was shocked to learn of the
proposed demolition of the only community building in Blackrod.. The
building is used 6 our of 7 evening per week ad is used for the only play
group in the village which has only 2 spaces for this year and is full for
next year. This building is not the best and was built using Blackrod UDC
funds before reorganisation. I more houses are proposed for the village
then where did you envisage these user groups meeting, as hopefully
there would be yet more people wanting to use the facilities. There are
adult and junior football teams using the football fields at present so have
you considered where these would be relocated? Our only youth club is
an absolute disgrace and is situated next to the Blackrod Primary School.
If that were to be demolished and a new community centre built in its
place then that would be a different matter. All users would then have a
suitable building, and football teams could use the school playing field.
The only problem you would then have to consider is the car parking,
which is excellent at the existing community centre.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I object because there is little
enough to do in the village, and I consider there are enough houses in
the district.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I object to the proposals for this site
as there are no other facilities of a similar nature in Blackrod. Also there
are sufficient housing in the area
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Wendy Higham
James Higham
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
201
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Janet Hilton
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC) is a vital community resource and
withdrawing it will have an extremely detrimental effect on the community
as it provides lots of activities and support which is greatly received and
enjoyed by all who use it.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Wendy Hilton
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My children participate in karate
every week at this community centre. They have gained a lot of
confidence and extra abilities from this essential resource, with its key
activities and support.
Walter Hogan
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Closure and demolition of the
community centre and loss of the playing fields would rip the heart out of
the village. The centre holds social events, public meeting and blood
donor sessions. The playing fields give access to an open space in the
middle of the village, where children can play games and residents can
give their dogs a run.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
202
Name
Louise Holden
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I write to you in connection with the plans for Blackrod Community
Centre as laid out in the LDF consultation document. I am a user of the
Community Centre and was both dismayed to hear of the plans and
disappointed in the manner in which myself and other Community Centre
users discovered the plans via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
203
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
204
Council response
Name
Sandra Hopkins
Anthony Howarth
Patricia
Howatson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre is an actively used facility which is essential
for community cohesion and well-being. The impact of the loss of this
centre would be tremendous not only on the users (who are from all parts
of the local community) but on the social and economic well-being of the
area. The centre creates an area for all ages to gather and focus on
positive activities which contribute to positive social action. From an
equality and diversity point of view, different generations of people
support one another and work together using the centre. Removal of the
centre would have a huge detrimental effect particularly on the
disaffected, disabled, youngest, elderly and lower socio-economic
sections of the community.
I believe that the impact assessment upon community cohesion,
community sustainability and equality and diversity has not been
adequately undertaken or this element of the proposal would not exist.
Whilst housing is essential, without sustainable strategies for keeping
and enhancing the current positive community spirit, further problems
would be created further down the line which could be more costly to the
council.
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): Soon there will be no facilities
left in the village. Not all families have cars meaning no access to
facilities afar.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre and surrounding fields are currently well
used by the local community and they also draw in other people from a
wide area - not just Blackrod/Bolton/Horwich. It is the primary community
centre for Blackrod. Such centres have to be easily accessible to the
local population and can't be replaced by community resources in
adjacent towns. Such a centre is vital for the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. It is the heart of the village. Is there some sort
of covenant protecting the land from development?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
205
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Marie Hughes
Pamela
Humphreys
Amy Jackson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
The Blackrod Community Centre is well used by various different groups,
both through the day and at night time.
There are no facilities in Blackrod as it is now for children or adults come
to think of it.
There is a playgroup, a karate club, Jehovah's Witness meetings and
dancing for the pensioners so the spectrum of people using the centre is
across the board.
Also the local football clubs use the changing rooms at the side.
If it was not used and just a haven for drinking teenagers, I could
understand the decision for housing but its not, therefore, I strongly
object to this centre being allocated for housing land.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC) offers a range of activities. The
karate club is a well supported club, both by children and adults. The
centre is well positioned for everyone in the area, and is near enough for
the elderly in the area. It would not be advantageous to close the centre
because a community will suffer and so will users from out of the area
who make the journey because of the centre and all the activities that are
put on there.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Essential to the community,
particularly under 16's. Established community centre is very important to
everyone in Blackrod and other areas. We come from Aspull to use
karate facilities so the effects wouldn't be confined to Blackrod. The loss
of this centre is more than just the loss of a building.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
206
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Katrina Jenkins
Lesley Johnson
Mary Johnson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre provides vital services to Blackrod and other
local surrounding communities. Personally we have a child attending the
play group and without the affordable child care I would have to reduce
my working hours.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
My objection is mainly concerning the demolition of the community centre
in Blackrod. It is, as the name infers, for and is used by the community
from young to old. Around 100 over 70s from the village also have a
lovely social there every year. More houses will cause extra traffic and
take away a much needed car park in Blackrod. Why not use the St
Andrews Church site, which is empty and up for sale?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
207
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Rita Jones
Blackrod Community Centre is, and has been for many years, the heart
of the community. It is used, by young and old, for functions, classes,
meetings etc. Do not take away the heart of the village.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Barry Jubb
Blackrod Community Centre, Blackrod (site 123sc): I object to the loss of
these three areas for the same reasons that I have objected to the loss of
other Greenspace areas, whether they be for formal or informal
recreational use.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sandra Kay
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is an
essential resource for the people of Blackrod housing a wide range of
community groups delivering key activities and support to the community.
Other such community resources in nearby town exist but are not
accessible to many residents including the elderly, the young and those
reliant on public transport.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
208
Name
Lindsey Kell
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I would like to register the strongest objections to the draft proposal to
allocate Blackrod Community Centre as part of land suitable for future
housing development in the area.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
This community centre is the heart of Blackrod's community. There are
very few public buildings in Blackrod and it is a lifeline for local groups
and local residents.
I cannot express strongly enough how passionate residents in Blackrod
are to keep their Community Centre open. Many residents have
approached me, and other ward and town councillors, and urged us to
oppose these plans. They are aghast that Blackrod Community Centre
could even be considered for such a scheme.
I do understand the need for housing, and especially affordable housing,
during these tough economic times. However our community also needs
green spaces for local children and vital public facilities to keep our
community together.
Lesley Kelly
Bolton Council
Please look again and reconsider these proposals as to close the
community centre would rip the heart out of this close community.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
209
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Sara Kelly
Victoria Lane
David Lavery
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Both my children have attended
the community playgroup. It gave them a good start to their early years
education. It would be a great loss for the other children if it was to close.
There should be more facilities in the village for children instead of taking
them away.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The community centre at Blackrod is used daily by the people of
Blackrod and nearby towns. It exists to bring the community together. Its
is used for karate, keep fit and as a nursery. The older generation use
the centre for dances which keep them mentally and physically active,
and without the centre they would have nothing, and nowhere to go. See
Petition.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
210
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Bernadette
Lawless
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This centre was built by Blackrod
Council for Blackrod people to use but again Bolton has to let it go for
housing. You are taking away a place that helps to give children a place
to go and do activities and a place for older people. Have a heart and
think of Blackrod, you don't do much for us.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Stephen Laycock
Blackrod Community Centre, Blackrod (site 123sc): The community
centre is a well used community resource. The use of recreational land
would appear to be contrary to PPG17.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Lorraine Levy
This is a well used community centre (Blackrod) which I use as a young
woman. It is at the centre of the village and has activities for all ages.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
211
Name
Stephen Lim
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is of great
use to many groups - ranging from young to old, from able to those who
require assistance, from those who learn to those who care. It is an
environment of safety and community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
By taking this building (and, indeed, the land on which it is situated)
away, Bolton MBC are taking away the safety and community that each
and every child, nursery nurse, karate student, elderly person, carer,
teenager and adult - in short, anyone who uses its facilities - feels.
Surely, Bolton Council should want to take at least some interest in the
welfare and well-being of the town's residents? For without somewhere
for those of nursery age to be looked after, without somewhere for the
elderly to spend time in the company of those they may not normally be
able to, and without somewhere for karate students like myself to learn
how to defend themselves in a violent situation, those organisations that
benefit so many people of Blackrod and its surrounding areas would be
pointless. I think it is safe to argue that these groups are most certainly
not pointless.
If we weigh up the benefits of a community centre which provides so
much for so many every day of every week, against a property developer
whose only aim is to sell houses and profit for themselves, then I think in my own personal opinion which, may I add, is shared by many
residents of Blackrod and Bolton - the argument is a no-brainer.
We should preserve the facilities provided for normal everyday people,
instead of seemingly following the trend of making cuts to what are vital
services. If we begin demolishing buildings such as Blackrod Community
Centre when it is clearly a beneficial centre for many people, what hope
is there for the National Health Service?
I sincerely hope that whoever reads this email and those like it will take
into consideration the severe consequences of what Bolton MBC are
planning, and even reconsider their proposal.
Please feel free to contact me with any queries as to my objections to the
proposal. Email would be preferred as I am a full-time student.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
212
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Jane Lim
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is used for a
wide variety of uses and activities which provides a valuable resource for
the local community and brings investment into the area. Blackrod does
not need more housing. The infrastructure cannot accommodate further
housing development.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Mike Lim
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is used for a
wide variety of uses and activities which provides a valuable resource for
the local community.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Melissa Lim
Blackrod Community Centre is relevant and essential to the people of
Blackrod and Bolton. It hosts a wide range of community groups which
deliver key activities and support to the community, adding development
and social interaction throughout Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Jane Lim
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): Blackrod does not need more
housing, and certainly not more private housing. The infrastructure is
strained already for sewage, road use and schools. To allow a private
developer to build 39 more houses on the site of a well-used and valuable
amenity, the Community Centre, which benefits a large number of people,
not just from Blackrod, seems to fly in the face of logic and commonsense. The beneficiaries of such a scheme will be in the minority.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Should the people of Blackrod, some years down the line, campaign for a
venue where people can meet for community-based activities, the cost of
providing a similar facility to that which currently exists will be prohibitive.
It is not difficult to understand that communities without such venues are
often subjected to higher levels of public disorder and crime.
Does the current council of Bolton borough wish to be remembered as
the body which allowed such a situation to occur? Please do the right
thing and dismiss this selfish proposal for good. Blackrod Community
Centre is too valuable an amenity to be erased for private gain.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
213
Name
Mike Lim
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): The community centre is very
much in use by various local groups, including a karate club of which I
am a member. The club has a substantial membership of adults and
children of both sexes and varying ages, who benefit from fitness
training, learn self-defence and embrace an ethos of respect, social
responsibility, anti-bullying and non-violence. The karate techniques
taught provide an absorbing and ongoing mental and physical challenge,
and the social interaction is enjoyed by all. Blackrod Community Centre
is the hub of the club, and its loss would be a huge blow, since no
suitable alternative is evident, in terms of location and size.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
To remove the community centre would be a blow to all the groups that
use it currently, and would rob future generations of the opportunity to
use it, whether as members of organisations that use it now or others
who may wish to do so in the future. Communities need community
centres and are the poorer without them, and I therefore ask that this
planning application be rejected and the community centre maintained
for the enjoyment local people now and in the years to come.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
214
Name
Mike Lim
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): The Community Centre is a
vibrant and well utilised community resource, it was therefore surprising
to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’ appended to the LDF noted that
it was “uncertain whether the Community Centre is still in use”. You will
appreciate that as the Community Centre is managed on behalf of the
people of Blackrod by Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort
to ascertain its ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the
plan for the Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive
the community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to
deprive the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to
the government’s localism and community agendas. The development of
the site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
215
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Darren Lloyd
Bolton Council
Blackrod Community Centre provides important and affordable childcare
services for many local residents and its surrounding area.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
216
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Silvia Lloyd
Blackrod Community Centre provides vital services to many people,
many of whom would not be able to go to work and would therefore be
on state benefit.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
D Lockhart
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is used
everyday for different leisure activities, a community nursery, provides
out of school activities used for religious meetings. The sports field are
used by children and adults for sport and football.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Hazel Lord
There is need for some modernisation of Blackrod Community Centre in
order that its continual use can be extended and it does not fall into
disrepair and become an eyesore within the community.
Its value, and the green space around it, are vital as a community space
to serve, not only the Greenbarn estate, but all residents of Blackrod and
beyond.
I therefore suggest that this proposal is reconsidered.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Samantha Lowe
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would increase
the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the primary
community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are community
resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many
residents including the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds set
out above and in light of the objectives of Central Government who have
made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the third and
voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without infrastructure to
support them, community groups such as those which use the community
centre will not be able to operate and these valuable resources and
services will be lost to the residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
217
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Carl Maddrick
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to this proposed
allocation.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Eva Martindale
Blackrod Community Centre serves thousands of people, not just those
living in Blackrod. I have never lived in Blackrod but my children have
attended playgroup, football, cricket and martial arts classes there. It is a
perfect size, and I am disgusted at the proposals.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Valerie McKnight
I have been running a class at Blackrod Community Centre for 8.5 years.
The local community get diet advice, a workout and exercise for all
levels. I have helped lots f ladies to lose weight and more importantly
keep it off in the long term. There is nowhere else in Blackrod to deliver
this kind of valuable service. See petition.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
218
Name
J McManus
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Following a conversation today
with Simon Godley we would like to register a protest regarding the
development or the suggested development in Blackrod on the site of the
Community Centre Greenbarn Way. Our understanding is that 39
dwellings are to be erected in line with the government’s agenda for
affordable housing. Our protest is that this site is used by the local
community for events during the whole year and the Community Centre
has various activities for children and families. If this resource is taken
away then the families in Blackrod would, be even more limited than
there are at the moment, having less and less local play area for the
children and future events would not be able to go ahead. The football
field is used on a weekly bases and families events are planned yearly to
encourage family fun days. The Community Centre itself is used weekly
various social events and activities including to name a few for Karate,
Playgroup, Slimming club, and others. On a personal note we live in a
bungalow which backs onto the Community Centre car park and we
would be concerned as to the type of dwelling erected, we object to
being over looked by 2 or 3 storey housing, we also object to housing
association tenants because our concern would be that Blackrod is a
very small village and would not be able to accommodate more families
because the family resources in the area are limited. Closing the
Community Centre and taking up the space on the field would mean that
any new children in the area would not have anywhere to play, which in
turn would cause boredom and mischief. We live in a very vulnerable
position as it is and we have experienced some issues with children and
we would not be happy should this increase as a result of social housing
being agreed. On a political point the government agenda directing local
councils to erect more housing is something that the politicians need to
address in a different way. I would also like to express my concern that
we have had no correspondence from the council on this matter and we
have only just heard today from a neighbour that this development plot is
being considered by the council and that any concerns need to be logged
today. In addition trying to find the relevant information on the council
web site is not easy I have not been able to find the consultation
document or a response form, hence my written objection.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
219
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Meadows
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): We would welcome new housing in
the area, which would benefit the church congregation and the schools
and shops, but feel that community centre should be incorporated into
the planning either the original area or a new purpose built one.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Cherelle Miller
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
I am a resident of Blackrod and also a parent who's son will be attending
the playgroup next year at Blackrod Community Centre. I would like to
object to the planning of building 39 houses here as I would struggle to
get my son to a playgroup if this facility was not available as there is no
where else in Blackrod to go. There are also a number of other parents in
Blackrod who also have small children who attend this playgroup. To
build houses here and take away this facility will be an absolute disgrace
and will cause us parents more stress and hassle.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Emma Milner
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
220
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Vivien Monteith
Alan Moorcroft
Moores
Joan Mugan
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (site 122sc): I am saddened to read the
proposals and the effect this will have not only on the above Karate club,
which my daughter attends but for other users of this community centre.
With regards to the karate, it is a long standing club with consistently
high attendance. The venue is great not only for the flooring being
suitable for the karate but for parking & facilities. The Community Centre
is central and convenient for the locals. You are planning to build more
houses but removing community resources.
The replacement of the Blackrod Community Centre and adjacent
playing fields for housing development would be yet another pillage by
Bolton Council on the now almost none existent amenities provided to
Blackrod residents. In removing the Community Centre and playing fields
it would deprive residents of all manner of recreational facilities which
have been enjoyed over many years. In addition the building of 39
houses on that land would put an enormous strain on the Blackrod
Health Centre, Schools and would lead to parking problems around the
Blackrod shops and noise disturbance by those residents children who
will have nowhere to play other than in nearby streets.
I would like to object to the proposal to use the land listed 123SC which
currently has Blackrod Community Centre sited on it. The community
centre is used on a very regular basis by children's groups, sports
classes etc. The community centre is at the heart of village life and it
would be a huge loss to the village.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): 1. The community centre is used
by various groups. 2. It is the only meeting/social place in Blackrod. 3. It
is a valuable asset to the local community. 4. The playing fields are also
used by the community on a regular basis
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
221
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Lorna Mullins
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): Our Community Centre is a
much required resource and the loss of it would leave this community
without it's core; children without a place to carry out their non-school
related activities; parents without an affordable childcare resource; and a
community without a place to gather and be a community and strengthen
the bonds so very much tested in this difficult economic environment.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
David Cameron stated in his first speech as Prime Minister that he
wanted to build a society with stronger families and stronger
communities, how will removing a Community Centre from it's community
achieve this goal?
We, as a young family, cannot see any benefit to the Community Centre
being replaced by dwellings and can only foresee the damage this would
cause to our community.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
222
Name
David Murray
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC) I write to you in connection with
the plans for Blackrod Community Centre as laid out in the LDF
consultation document. I am a user of the Community Centre and was
both dismayed to hear of the plans and disappointed in the manner in
which myself and other Community Centre users discovered the plans
via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
223
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
224
Council response
Name
Jade Nelson
Maria Newton
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
225
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kenneth
Nightingale
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Loss of a very well used
community centre and playing area. Volume of traffic. The development
would cause loss of parking spaces. This area was supposed to be for
recreational purposes - there was a covenant on the land.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Leanne Noble
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
226
Name
R Norrie
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Following a conversation today
with Simon Godley we would like to register a protest regarding the
development or the suggested development in Blackrod on the site of the
Community Centre Greenbarn Way. Our understanding is that 39
dwellings are to be erected in line with the government’s agenda for
affordable housing. Our protest is that this site is used by the local
community for events during the whole year and the Community Centre
has various activities for children and families. If this resource is taken
away then the families in Blackrod would, be even more limited than
there are at the moment, having less and less local play area for the
children and future events would not be able to go ahead. The football
field is used on a weekly bases and families events are planned yearly to
encourage family fun days. The Community Centre itself is used weekly
various social events and activities including to name a few for Karate,
Playgroup, Slimming club, and others. On a personal note we live in a
bungalow which backs onto the Community Centre car park and we
would be concerned as to the type of dwelling erected, we object to
being over looked by 2 or 3 storey housing, we also object to housing
association tenants because our concern would be that Blackrod is a
very small village and would not be able to accommodate more families
because the family resources in the area are limited. Closing the
Community Centre and taking up the space on the field would mean that
any new children in the area would not have anywhere to play, which in
turn would cause boredom and mischief. We live in a very vulnerable
position as it is and we have experienced some issues with children and
we would not be happy should this increase as a result of social housing
being agreed. On a political point the government agenda directing local
councils to erect more housing is something that the politicians need to
address in a different way. I would also like to express my concern that
we have had no correspondence from the council on this matter and we
have only just heard today from a neighbour that this development plot is
being considered by the council and that any concerns need to be logged
today. In addition trying to find the relevant information on the council
web site is not easy I have not been able to find the consultation
document or a response form, hence my written objection.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
227
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Olga Norris
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre is used by
various groups and there would be nowhere to engender community
spirit in Blackrod. I object to the sneaky way Bolton Council have tried to
push this through. As usual Blackrod is discounted as the least important
place in Bolton. We don't need anymore houses.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
John Nuttall
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I train at karate at the community
centre and so have a lot of others for years.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Joan O'Toole
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): More and more houses will
spoil the beauty of Blackrod, which has always kept its respect and some
independence.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Cara Owen
Having read the plans to build on the site of Blackrod Community Centre
I am disappointed to say the least. My son attends karate at Blackrod
Community Centre 2-3 times a week and has for 2 years. Closing this
centre will deprive those who attend the karate, mainly from local but
some from surrounding areas. The local community centre is of great
benefit as it is also used as a nursery school. My fears are also for the
children in the surrounding area with no activities and no place to go.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Kenneth Page
Bolton Council
Organisation
Please re think the Closure of the Community Centre.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): There's already of shortage of local
amenities in the village. Would leave the village with just a part time
library. For many people travelling to Bolton or even Horwich is not an
option yet most amenities are concentrated in these places.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
228
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Gemma Parr
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): My children use the community
centre each week for playgroups and Karate. It is the only local
playgroup.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Darren Parrish
Blackrod Community Centre is an integral part of the community which
offers social activities for all ages.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Helen Pearcy
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The impact on the small Blackrod
community would be huge. As it is a small village, the community centre
is a well used focal point for the area and used for many things.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
229
Name
Pickford
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I write to you in connection with the plans for Blackrod Community
Centre as laid out in the LDF consultation document. I am a user of the
Community Centre and was both dismayed to hear of the plans and
disappointed in the manner in which myself and other Community Centre
users discovered the plans via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
230
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
231
Council response
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Pieczonka
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Housing market in flat - do we
need more houses? Property developer is more interested in making
money than providing a useful addition to Blackrod. Local facilities for
local people to have access to, should be the guiding policy used here.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Connie Rainford
It is very important to keep Blackrod Community Centre for Blackrod
people. There is nowhere else in the village for people to go. There is
something for everyone (from infants to adults) at the centre.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Brenda Ramsey
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I am disgusted to think that anyone
would want to take away our community centre. We haven't got much in
Blackrod. Blackrod is overpopulated.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Melvyn Leslie
Ratcliffe
Blackrod Community Centre is a vital resource within Blackrod and
possibly the last resource, apart from the library which is only open two
and a half days a week.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
David Redman
My daughter trains for karate at Blackrod Community Centre and closing
it would mean upheaval and possibly closing the club.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
232
Name
Gordon
Richardson
Sandra Ridgway
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): As a long term person in the
Blackrod community and being involved in running organised sport
(football) from the centre for many years I believe the loss of the
community centre would be a great loss to Blackrod. It would be a loss to
all the organisations that use the centre, for example, karate, playgroup,
religious organisations.
As there is very little premises in Blackrod for children to go and enjoy
themselves and learn new things I 100% disagree with the plans.
Objects to the propose housing allocation on the site of the Blackrod
Community Centre for the following reasons:
*The
community centre is used 7 days a week by various groups including the
playgroup, karate club, local football team, keep fit/swimming club, dance
group etc. Where would these groups go instead?
*New housing means an increase in traffic and congestion.
*Local primary and secondary schools are already over-subscribed.
*There would be more pressure on the medical centre and its services.
*Parking in the village and the shopping areas is already very restricted.
*Children's play area will be reduced with the removal of the playing
fields. Children will therefore play in other, perhaps unsafe, areas near to
roads which could result in an increase in accidents.
*Blackrod has a significant number of equestrian facilities whose
members use the village roads to hack to the limited bridleways in the
area. Increased traffic would make this a more dangerous pursuit.
*The centre is hired for functions like birthdays, charity events and blood
donor sessions.
*The
train service is already stretched especially at peak times.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
233
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Kevin Riley
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I find it incredible that the council, in considering the allocation of land,
does not know if its buildings are actually used. I refer to the
Sustainability Appraisal for the Blackrod Community Centre site. The
Improving health and well being text states: "Uncertain whether
community centre is in use". Blackrod Community Centre is in use
regularly by several organisations. The removal of this building would
have a significant impact on the community and yet another important
community facility.
Again in the same section the Sustainability Appraisal states: "Some of
this site is on recreational open space. Although the allocation only
covers a portion of the recreational open space and would not represent
a loss of all the recreational open space..". Again this document fails to
understand the nature of the recreational open space. It contains a
football field marked out and used significantly. To remove a section of
this would in fact remove the ability to have a full sized pitch and
therefore remove a leisure, recreational an healthy activity opportunity for
many youngsters and adults. This would seem to be in contradiction with
other initiatives designed to improve health and recreational opportunity.
I find it amazing that the Sustainability Appraisal should consider the
proposal to have "minor impact.." when considering "To improve on the
prosperity... and viability of the town and district centres". It is clear that
this document was not produced with any local knowledge or community
involvement. I object very strongly to the proposal which would have a
negative impact on the community with little benefit in terms of the
numbers of additional homes built. Within Bolton there are many
brownfield sites, currently not in use, which should be considered before
damaging community and recreational facilities. This particular aspect of
the plan would further undermine community cohesion, continuing the
push towards Blackrod being a dormitory housing estate on the edge of
Bolton with no central community focus. I also note the proposals
suggest other recreational areas, used by young families, as potential
building sites. I find the arguments for the removal of these equally
unacceptable.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
234
Name
Kristie Rising
Paul Samson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposals to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community.
The land on which the community centre sits is not the only piece of land
in Blackrod on which development is proposed and therefore these plans
would increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously
withdrawing the primary community resource.
Whilst I acknowledge that there are community resources in other
adjacent towns, these are not as accessible to many residents including
the elderly, young and those reliant on public transport.
I would like the council to reconsider the proposal both on the grounds
set out above and in the light of the objectives of central government who
have made an express commitment to the delivery of services by the
third and voluntary sectors at local and community levels. Without
infrastructure to support them, community groups such as those which
use the community centre will not be able to operate and these valuable
resources and services will be lost to the people of Blackrod.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
235
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Mohamed SayedAhmed
Jill Seddon
Victoria Seddon
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
I believe that Blackrod Community Centre and the playing fields are an
important and valuable part of our village. They are a focal point for the
community and one of the few facilities left that Blackrod has to offer. To
lose these would be a massive blow to the people of Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Objection to proposed housing allocation at site of Blackrod Community
Centre (site 123sc)
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
236
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Joanne Sedwell
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): 1. Negative impact on the Big
Society. 2. Community centre is used by different members of the
community for a variety of activities. 3. Increased traffic. 4. Reduced
facilities. 5. Negative impact on biodiversity. 6. Pressure on resources.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Carol Selva
Blackrod Community Centre is used frequently for all manner of
community purposes.
It is one of the very few resources in the area where people can gather.
I firmly believe that this area , in general, has already been subjected to
various housing projects over the years and we need to hold onto what
little green and common land we still have locally.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Joanne Simpson
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the redevelopment of
Blackrod Community Centre for residential purposes. This centre is the
heart of the community - my son has been attending a karate group 2-3
times a week for the past 3 years. We travel from Bolton (BL3) as there
are no facilities in the town centre for such groups. Closure of this facility
will be detrimental to the community and the children.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
David Smith
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): We strongly object to the proposed
loss of Blackrod's community centre and playing fields. Both these
amenities are will used by all ages of residents in the village. There will
be nothing left for social events and could mean the loss of the football
teams.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Thomas Smith
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): It should stay as a community
centre for any functions that take place in the village. The football club
have played there for ages, where will they go?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
237
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Frank Speak
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): How anyone of sound mind could
even dream of a proposal such as this, not to mention considering it, just
beggars belief. When you have developed upon these green spaces and
amenities where do you propose the children and adults go for their
recreation in this 'outpost' which used to be a village community. Perhaps
you intend to provide free transport into Bolton.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ann Speak
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The centre is needed for lots of
village activities and run properly could be at the heart of this village with
so few amenities. We pay our taxes and get very little in return from
Bolton Council.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Dorothy Speak
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): The government strategy is to
get children and adults off their bottoms, to do some form of exercise so
as to keep them healthier. Yet the local government want to take the
local community facilities away. It is the only place in the village where
these forms of activities take place.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Elizabeth
Spencer
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
238
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
residents of Blackrod.
Gordon Spencer
Bolton Council
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
239
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Hannah Spencer
Angela Stevens
Rachel Stewart
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My family use the community
centre to partake their hobbies - karate and football. We also attend
family events during the year. Also living in Blackrod there is only one
doctors surgery, which is already hard to get an appointment at. Plus we
don't want any more of our fields covered in houses as we live in a lovely
village which we all admire.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre is an integral part of society where lots of
activities take place for people of all ages.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
240
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Amanda Stirzaker
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I write to you in connection with the plans for Blackrod Community
Centre as laid out in the LDF consultation document. I am a user of the
Community Centre and was both dismayed to hear of the plans and
disappointed in the manner in which myself and other Community Centre
users discovered the plans via an article in the Bolton News.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The Community Centre is a vibrant and well utilised community resource,
it was therefore surprising to find that the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’
appended to the LDF noted that it was “uncertain whether the
Community Centre is still in use”. You will appreciate that as the
Community Centre is managed on behalf of the people of Blackrod by
Bolton Council it should have taken very little effort to ascertain its
ongoing use. The Sustainability Appraisal also rates the plan for the
Community Centre as ‘Red’ and notes that it would deprive the
community of a recreational resource.
For many years the Community Centre has been an integral part of the
life of Blackrod hosting a wide and diverse range of clubs, groups and
events. At present these include children’s groups, weight management
classes, sporting clubs and facilities for blood donation. To seek to derive
the community of this valuable resource surely runs contrary to the
government’s localism and community agendas. The development of the
site would entail the closure of the only community resource in the
village, whilst I am sure that the argument will be put forward that
villagers can utilise resources in Horwich or Westhoughton these are
inaccessible to many members of our community.
The lack of public attention that has been drawn to these plans could be
considered to be an attempt to gain their approval without raising public
consternation at their content and certainly appears to run contrary to
Bolton Council’s own 36 page Consultation Toolkit, which as it is freely
available on the website I assume is also freely available to council
officers. This goes into great detail about appropriate consultation and
community involvement – none of which has taken place on this
occasion. Our understanding is that councillors were also unaware of the
plans until a meeting called at short notice some two weeks ago.
The wider impact of the plans on Blackrod must also be considered. The
LDF proposes an additional 140 dwellings in the village including building
on three recreational spaces. This would severely deplete the
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
241
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
recreational facilities forcing residents from the Blackhorse end of the
village to travel to the Scot Lane end to access park and playground
space. If the development of the recreational space went ahead in 2012
the developers would be obliged to provide comparable recreation
facilities the intent is to move forward in 2013 when this would not be the
case.
This seems to be a cynical attempt to manipulate the planning system to
avoid these requirements. These additional dwellings will also put further
strain on the road and sewage systems and we are advised that there
are insufficient school places to support the increase in housing though
we are led to believe that a new two form entry school at Horwich Loco
Works on the boundary of Blackrod will accommodate this increase. This
fails to take into account the considerable distance between the two
locations for young parents without access to private transportation or
the impact on road use from an increase in school time traffic.
As Councillors and Members of Parliament and therefore representative
of the people of Blackrod I would ask that you give these proposals your
full attention and raise the adverse impact of these plans, in particular the
development of the Community Centre, to the relevant council officers
and members.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
242
Council response
Name
Stoddard
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I am writing to object to the proposed plans to build on Site No. 123 SC,
the Community Centre, Car Park and Football Fields in Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
I object for the following reasons:
1. The community centre plays an important role in Blackrod; the football
fields allow children to play in a safe environment away from the
extremely busy main road.
2. More houses will no doubt increase the traffic on Greenbarn Way
which is already extremely busy and dangerous for the number of
children who play in the area
3. More houses will no doubt mean more children trying to get into the
already over-subscribed Blackrod Primary School, meaning increased
competition for places for children already residing in the area.
Karen Stringer
Yasmine
Surendramohan
Bolton Council
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
The community centre is the hub of the village, this is the only place
where everybody can get together. It would be a great blow to the village
if it was lost.
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
243
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Jacqueline Sutton
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): This is a green belt area used for
children's activities, karate, annual scarecrow weekend and football. The
Village community hall is used daily for residents, religious meetings,
OAP gatherings, functions, social events, out of school and holiday
activity bus,. Its a children's safe area to play away from traffic. No more
added traffic, noise and building. This is a village not a town, as we like it.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Steven Sweeney
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The village will lose a vital part of
its daily life.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Graham Taylor
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): I object to the proposal to
redevelop the above centre for residential use. This should be used as a
resource for all the community. It is no use taking all the spare
recreational land in Blackrod for redevelopment, then going on about
children and young people being obese and not becoming involved in
sport. There are other community resources in adjacent towns, but are
not as accessible to the elderly, young and those unemployed. I would
like the council to reconsider the proposals because a village/town
without amenities will eventually become a trouble zone or will die.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
244
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
We strongly object to the proposed development on the community
centre land in Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (Site 123sc): The community centre is a
central point to the Blackrod area and as such is a base for a vast
number of community based groups and projects. The centre and
surrounding fields provide an rare location to promote these community
activities which will be lost.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Christopher
Thompson
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are not apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Sandra
Thompson
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Rye Karate Academy and a local children's
playgroup. Community Centres of this type are useful to bring the
community together and there are no apparent plans to build another in
Blackrod.
Christopher
Thompson
I object to the demolishing of Blackrod Community Centre to make way
for housing as the venue is used by numerous organisations including
the Blackrod and Bolton Goju Ryu Karate Academy and a local
children's' play group. Community centres of this type are useful to bring
the community together and there are no apparent plans to build another
in Blackrod.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Taylor
Chris Taylor
Bolton Council
Amor Group
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
245
Name
Simon Tomlinson
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre provides an excellent service to the local
community. From day care, to dance classes to karate classes. The
fields are used by the local football teams and the local children to give
them outdoor activity during all seasons.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
The karate classes are very popular with local families and children, the
popularity shows as the length of time the club has been established,
over 25 years, with approx. the last 10 years solely at the Community
centre. The classes give children the chance to learn a martial art, get
exercise and also gives them a good code of practise to follow, which
revolves around being respectful to all. Removing this facility will take
away from Blackrod an established Karate club which boasts a
significant number of members.
The centre also holds annual events, such as the Scarecrow Festival, the
whole village takes part and the centre has a day of fun for the families in
the surrounding area. Again it proves popular as this has been a regular
feature for many years.
Kim Traynor
Joan Trevena
Bolton Council
I object strongly to the plans to redevelop the centre into a housing area
as the local community would have no other centre which provides an
invaluable amenity to the local community.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): My children both attended the
community playgroup and have enjoyed many community events at the
centre. It would be a great loss to lose the centre for many people, in and
around Blackrod.
I wish to object to the proposed development of the Blackrod Community
Centre because it is our village centre for activities, clubs, sports and
entertainment.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
246
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Simon Tull
Irene Valentine
Keeley Valentine
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): I object to this planning application
on the grounds that these houses will overlook my bungalow which will
take away my right to privacy. Also none of the nearby residents have
been notified of this plan. The community centre is the only social contact
for many people. Also where will Blackrod town play their matches if the
only playing field in Blackrod is taken away?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
I think it is wrong to close Blackrod Community Centre. It will be a sad
loss to the local people as lots of them use the facilities.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
247
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Hanneke Van
Dijk
On b/h of the members of
Rivington Morris
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): The Community Centre is in
use. We find it astounding that in a document produced by the Council
looking forwards to the future of Bolton, that such a line as 'uncertain
whether community centre is in use' appeared. It is one of the Council's
own facilities, booked out by the Council. Surely it would have been easy
to have found out this information.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
We have used the Community Centre for some 20+ years on a weekly
basis and it forms an ideal location/facility for us. I understand other
groups use it on a regular basis such as a playgroup, a church group, a
keep fit group etc. It is used - the community using its centre is the
primary function.
People who live in houses need facilities and infrastructure. The centre is
an amenity for all those who live in Blackrod. More houses equals more
people, who in turn, need facilities. Would a new community centre be
built alongside the houses?
There would definitely be a loss of recreational space with the loss of
playing fields surrounding the community centre.
There would be a loss of a 'green lung' in what already an area that
already has high density housing around it - two large estates
surrounding the community centre.
Simon
Wadsworth
Bolton Council
This 'green lung' provides a visually appealing space amongst all the
houses, providing a children's play area outside their own house
confines. It provides recreational space, a public space, a breathing
space, all things that enhance local people's wellbeing and sense of
place.
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the proposal to
redevelop Blackrod community centre for residential purposes. The
community centre is an essential resource for the people of Blackrod
hosting a wide range of groups.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
248
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Gladys Walkden
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): We do not want any more
houses. The ones for sale now are not selling. The only thing left is the
community centre.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Vincent Walkden
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): There are no other amenities in
Blackrod for the aged, or young.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Tony Walsh
I would like to submit my opposition to the planned housing
developments for Blackrod, 123SC Community centre,124SC Shawbury
close,
124SC Manchester rd., The easiest way to see my objection is to view
Blackrod on a map please note these are Three green areas used for
recreation were family can run around and play with their children ,the
simple things the government promotes, you yourself promote yourself
as the” Bolton family”
and that's what these areas represent Quality time we spend in the fresh
air with our kids if you take these areas of us what have we left, just the
park at the bottom of the village the poorest looking park in Bolton ,one of
the sites even has “community “ in the title and that's what this is about,
not taking land but taking away our community and I think we will be all
together fighting this every step of the way, as community is important to
us all, that's one of the reasons we have one of the best primary schools
in the area if not the country, because we care about our kids future, and
these plans affect it greatly.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The community centre has been
used for many different purposes and has been for over 20 years. It is a
real part of the community and is important to many people.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Sharon Walsh
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
249
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Warburton
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): I object to the proposed
redevelopment as the centre is an essential key resource for the local
community, as it is used for a number of activities. These activities help
to keep our children off the streets and give them a good moral
grounding. Extra housing would also increase an already well populated
area putting extra pressure on local services in particular schools.
Willow Warburton
This is a well used community centre (Blackrod) which I use as a young
woman. It is at the centre of the village and has activities for all ages.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
250
Name
Barry Watson
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I am lodging my objection to the plans for housing developments on the
site of the Blackrod community centre.
The draft plan notes state - Uncertain whether community centre is in
use. If it is still open,
I can not believe that the Bolton MBC can input this in to an official
document- This show utter contempt for the tax payer of Blackrod. - The
Centre is well used by many groups.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
In respect of the proposed development potential - The area of black rod
does have any other focal point for community use or open playing fields.
The town has a good reputation in terms of lack of crime / damage or anti
social behaviour, the developments of dozens of new homes on a
community site and green area would be detrimental this reputation.
there are many other redevelopment areas - sites that need demolition,
that would be far more suitable - no removing focal points of well used
amenities as with the Community centre.
Local groups use this centre & the playing fields also, the site is a
meeting point for ramblers who recognise the beauty of Blackrod.
Removing all the space and amenities and creating more traffic and
buildings and reducing green space would damage the town as a whole.
James Weaver
Bolton Council
Please advise your surveyor to visit and ask what the centre is used for,
talk to people in the area and listen to what is said.
The council surveyor appears to be judging from his desk - the centre is
in use and long may this continue.
Blackrod is an asset to Bolton MBC - and investment in existing
amenities, services and infrastructure is required - not removal of
amenities.
The local community will oppose this at every level.
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc): 1. The centre is used by family
members for playgroup and slimming and keep fit purposes. 2. The
community of Blackrod has little or no facilities provided by the council. 3.
Does Blackrod need more housing development? 4. What will happen to
blood donor facilities?
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
251
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ian Whittle
Blackrod Community Centre is in regular use by all age groups from preschool to over 80's. The playing fields are also in use by football teams in
the area. Why replace areas that are used every day by local residents
with housing thus adding to road congestion. Will the existing
infrastructure with regards to health and education be able to cope with
the additional pressure placed upon it?
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Ian Whittle
Blackrod Community Centre, Blackrod (site 123sc): There is little enough
for the youth of Blackrod to do without taking away the playing areas for
housing.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Irene Wignall
I protest against Blackrod Community Centre being taken down. It is
used for the community of Blackrod. It is a place where groups of all
different ages meet to get together to do exercises, blood donation,
playgroup and other things during a year. The bus service is not good,
there is only one bus per hour after 6pm. If the centre is closed all the
children and young people would be on the streets.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Gemma Wignall
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
housing. It is used for many purposes, catering for all people in Blackrod;
from playgroup to Blood donors, from exercise/sporting classes to
functions/parties. I currently participate in karate lessons at the
community centre and we will not have a regular place to train.
Matthew Wignall
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): Destroying a building in a small
village that attracts many people of different ages. It will also be the end
of newly formed Blackrod Town Football Club.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
252
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Victoria Williams
Blackrod Community Centre is the heart of the community and is used on
a daily basis. I thoroughly object to these plans, we need to keep the
centre.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
James
Winstanley
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Taking away an essential
community resource vital to Blackrod. Land off Whitehall Lane could be
used instead. This land was previously used for housing and is at
present over Crown and Derelict
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Joan Winstanley
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Taking away an essential
community resource vital to Blackrod. Land off Whitehall Lane could be
used instead. This land was previously used for housing and is at
present over Crown and Derelict
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Christopher
Winstanley
Blackrod Community Centre is a place I use, as a 21 year old man, three
times a week. It has been a huge part of my life. The community centre is
used by all generations of the community. This is a well facilitated venue
that caters for everyone.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre is the hub of the village and a centre which
is used daily, it is a place in which the children and adults of the
community meet on a daily basis, without this centre they have nothing. I
have personally been teaching martial arts in the village for 28 years. In
this time the community centre has provided a base for the students to
train, most of the students live in the village and feel it is a well
established venue.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Amanda
Winstanley
Bolton Council
Organisation
Blackrod Karate
Association
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
253
Name
Christopher
Wood
Nicola Jane
Woods
Kathleen Woods
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to the proposal to redevelop Blackrod Community Centre for
residential purposes. The community centre is an essential resource for
the people of Blackrod hosting a wide range of community groups
delivering key activities and support to the community. The land on which
the community centre sits is not the only piece of land in Blackrod on
which development is proposed and therefore these plans would
increase the population of the town whilst simultaneously withdrawing the
primary community resource. Whilst I acknowledge that there are
community resources in other adjacent towns, these are not as
accessible to many residents including the elderly, young and those
reliant on public transport. I would like the council to reconsider the
proposal both on the grounds set out above and in light of the objectives
of Central Government who have made an express commitment to the
delivery of services by the third and voluntary sectors at local and
community levels. Without infrastructure to support them, community
groups such as those which use the community centre will not be able to
operate and these valuable resources and services will be lost to the
residents of Blackrod.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): There is very little for young and
old people to do, where else is there fore them to go? The football fields
are heavily used.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): The Community Centre was built to
serve the needs of the inhabitants of Blackrod. The football field should
be retained for its health benefits, and to encourage sport and exercise
locally.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
254
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Susan Wooff
I object to the proposed allocation at Blackrod Community Centre
(123SC)
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Adam Woolley
The Blackrod Community Centre has, since my childhood, been a focal
point of the village, a hub of community action and the most convenient
of locations for a karate session.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Kathryn Woolley
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): It is the only community centre in
Blackrod. It is a place for recreational facilities i.e. karate. There would be
no other provision.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Hilary Young
Blackrod Community Centre (123sc): Community Centres are important
places and for Blackrod even more so as we are a community and need
a place for things to happen. The community centre and football pitch are
well used.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Two Towns Area Forum: Blackrod Community Centre (123SC): The town
councillors were very concerned that a well used community facility
would be lost.
Development has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
255
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Jacqueline Jowett
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc) and Shawbury Close (site
124sc): Blackrod Community Centre is well used and provides a lifeline
for the residents of Blackrod. Building on this site would cause parking
problems, affect the roads in Blackrod and also the schools.
Joan Ambrose
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC), Shawbury Close (124SC) and
Manchester Road (125SC) are used frequently by children of all ages to
play on. Parents need to be able to keep and eye on their children easily.
The community centre is used by many groups, where would they go?
We need to invest in people's happiness and their emotional and
physical development. You are treating these facilities as a cash cow.
People matter.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
256
Name
Keith Calvert
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC), Shawbury Close (124SC),
Manchester Road (125SC): I object to all the proposed development; the
development would remove the little accessible recreational open spaces
and limited amenity (i.e. community centre/football field.) They would
increase traffic flows at different times of the day which are already
problematic; the two remaining schools would be under pressure to take
in the additional children, I believe already full. The community centre is
used daily - why remove it? A previous planning application (i.e. meeting
rooms) - community centre area was declined in 2009. Why is this land
now fit for housing development
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
257
Name
Wendy Dawson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC), Shawbury Close (124SC),
Manchester Road (125SC). : As far as I am aware there is a covenant on
the community centre and land.
Safe green land is very important for everybody, especially children. I
have two and would hate to see them playing on the roadside. Drivers
can be inconsiderate and could very easily harm a child who is focused
on play, not child safety. My daughter is due to start playgroup in 8
months at the community centre, this will be a very valuable addition to
her life. It is vital that my daughter can access the playgroup in order that
she develops her social skills. She will make friends and hopefully I will
meet other parents. Without that facility we would have to wait until my
daughter is old enough to start a school nursery. Why should my
daughter lose out to the councils greed?
Many sports matches take place on the fields, drawing together
communities. Dogs are exercised, where could they go?
The public areas need to be improved, not destroyed. As a child I spent
many hours socialising in these areas. I could safely socialise without my
parents worrying. We chose to move to Blackrod to give our children the
opportunities I had. If these proposals go through there will be nowhere
for children to grow up away from home i.e. playgroups, parks etc. They
will be more restricted and far less healthy as there will be no incentive to
leave the house.
Many of the play areas have gone from when I was a child. If they were
improved they would be used. Other areas of Bolton seem to have
fantastic play areas. Why do we miss out?
It is very wrong to build on this land. Depression and lack of fresh air will
be a very real result of our land disappearing.
It
is very upsetting to feel that we don't matter. Money is king. We
contribute to our society financially and emotionally yet we don't matter. I
am very disappointed that things have got to this point.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
258
Name
Gordon Finnerty
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blackrod Community Centre (site 123sc), Shawbury Close (site 124sc)
and Manchester Road (125sc): Objecting due to loss of community
centre and playing fields.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
259
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Stella Lowis
Blackrod Town Council
As the Town Council for Blackrod, we are collectively opposed to the
planned developments in Blackrod as set out in the Draft Allocations
Plan, namely The Community Centre, Shawbury Close, Manchester
Road on the following grounds;
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
All the green places identified in the Allocation Plan are currently utilised
for recreational activities, particularly by children.
The proposals appear to be in direct contrast to Bolton’s strategy for the
development of open space. These strategic aims state that there should
be good quality and accessible open space that allow for sport and
recreational activities for people of all ages, in particular children. These
spaces should enhance local living and the surrounding environment,
whilst helping to invest in the future of our children and young people. If
development is to take place on the sites as listed within the Blackrod
Community as a whole, the loss of green spaces would adversely affect
the local environment, as well as creating a negative visual and
emotional atmosphere. Additional housing development would create
pressures on schools which are already over subscribed, see the current
traffic and parking situation worsen and have an impact on environmental
quality. When considering a possible increase in residential density there
needs to be further consideration given to the lack of infrastructure that
would ensue including water, sewerage and roads to name but a few as
well as having an impact on community amenities.
Open spaces, sport and recreation underpin people’s quality of life and
much consideration should be given as to what would happen in
Blackrod if they were to be deprived of one of the main focal points in
their community, namely the Community Centre. This well used centre
provides opportunity for children, young people and adults of all ages to
participate in social interaction, teaching and learning experiences, as
well as being the only area where there is a substantial number of
playing fields that are being used for organised sport and recreational
activities with changing facilities.
A further robust audit of the Blackrod area, in particular the Community
Centre and surrounding playing fields, would identify the usage of these
identified spaces and we would strongly urge those involved in the
process to acknowledge the feelings of the Council and of the residents
of Blackrod as a whole in removing these sites from the allocation
process.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
260
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ian & Pauline
Unsworth
Blackrod Community Centre (123SC), Shawbury Close (124SC),
Manchester Road (125SC): I am told that this application is to enable
Bolton Council to sell off land in Blackrod for housing development. If that
is correct I think it is wrong to deprive the people of Blackrod of the green
areas which people can use for leisure and where children can play. Also
if this application relates to the community centre and playing fields I was
told (don't know if correctly) that the community centre and playing fields
were given or sold to the council with a covenant attached requiring that
the land be used for the benefit of the people of Blackrod.
I object to Blackrod being turned into an area with nothing but houses
and businesses with no open spaces and no facilities.
If the land is sold what will the money be used for? Will it benefit the
people of Blackrod?
Tony Walsh
I would like to submit my opposition to the planned housing
developments for Blackrod, 123SC Community centre,125SC Shawbury
close,
124SC Manchester rd., The easiest way to see my objection is to view
Blackrod on a map please note these are Three green areas used for
recreation were family can run around and play with their children ,the
simple things the government promotes, you yourself promote yourself
as the” Bolton family”
and that's what these areas represent Quality time we spend in the fresh
air with our kids if you take these areas of us what have we left, just the
park at the bottom of the village the poorest looking park in Bolton ,one of
the sites even has “community “ in the title and that's what this is about,
not taking land but taking away our community and I think we will be all
together fighting this every step of the way, as community is important to
us all, that's one of the reasons we have one of the best primary schools
in the area if not the country, because we care about our kids future, and
these plans affect it greatly.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
261
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Sheila Johnson
There are very few green areas in Blackrod for the use of residents. The
community centre and playing fields were donated to the people of
Blackrod and are very well used by all ages. The development of these
sites will result in a marked increase in traffic and parking will be more of
a problem.
Susan Walsh
There are very few green areas in Blackrod for the use of residents. The
community centre and playing fields were donated to the people of
Blackrod and are very well used by all ages. The development of these
sites will result in a marked increase in traffic and parking will be more of
a problem.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
262
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Blindsill Road, Farnworth (94SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
The site currently provides an open
green space, of fairly low amenity
value and there are potential benefits
from residential development.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
263
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
BNU North (68SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
The site currently provides an open
green space, of fairly low amenity
value and there are potential benefits
from residential development for
regeneration of the area.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
264
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Breightmet Fold Lane, Breightmet (65SC): I don't object in principle to
any building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is
gifted into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the the towns next generation of families deserve as they
too try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
The site has value as open space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
265
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Council
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Comment Summary
Council response
Brodick Drive - Breightmet (57SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Brook Saw Mills (51SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor along
Bradshaw Brook and as such should be protected under Core Strategy
policy CG2.
The land is partly used as a playing
pitch.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
266
Development would have a positive
effect on this previously developed site
which is vacant and derelict. Part of
the western edge of the site has
planning consent for housing. This site
is on the edge of Bradshaw Brook with
a wider area of open land to the east
which is a site of biological importance.
These will remain so development will
not compromise any wildlife corridor.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kenneth Allman
I object to building on the land at Cedar Avenue for reasons of a play and
recreational area being lost. It will be lost forever and will never be able
to be replaced. The only people to benefit and make any profit will be the
developers and builders. Once the building is finished they will just leave.
They have no interest in what children and dog walkers will do. It is the
only open area in Claypool and should be left that way.
Keith Almond
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Object to this proposed allocation
Jennifer Astley
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): The land is used by St. Elizabeth's Church
for the after school club, cubs and scouts, church activities and games. It
is the only piece of land for our children and grandchildren to play safely
without crossing roads. It is well used by children and young adults for
football, rounders and general play. Access for vehicles to housing would
be terrible. Chorley New Road to the Beehive roundabout is too busy all
day - we have enough new property being built in Horwich.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
267
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
David Atherton
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc):
1. Land is designated as recreational open space.
2. It is protected land.
3. Policy CG1.2 of the Core Strategy seeks to safeguard and enhance
biodiversity, protecting the sites of trees and woodland from
development.
4. The councils tree officer considers the trees to be of high amenity
value to the area.
5. Considering the ongoing and recent residential developments in the
area, for example, Middlebrook, Victoria Mill, BAe site, Swallowfield
Hotel, we consider the protection of a small well used playing field to be
essential to the well being of local children.
6. As an observer of wildlife we would like to point out that this is an
important habitat. When it's gone it's gone.
7. More
houses equals more congestion. This will add to be already appallingly
bad traffic queues on Chorley New Road and Claypool Road, particularly
at the Beehive Roundabout.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Margrit Ayres
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I am opposed to the proposed housing
allocation for the following reasons:
*If this field is built on, children would have to resort to playing on the
streets as the nearest play area is Old Station Park in Horwich, which is
well over 1 mile away.
*People would have nowhere to exercise dogs.
*The amount of traffic which will ensue - already a problem along
Claypool Road and Chorley New Road.
*The amount of house building has increased since I have been living
here and has ruined the small town atmosphere. Crime will be increased
but with no visible increase in policing.
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Cedar Avenue field is an important piece of
recreational land. Myself and my children use it for our own personal
usage. We play football and rounders on it In summer and I use it to jog
on to keep fit. Houses on this land would take away for the community as
well as add problems to the community as I feel there aren't enough
amenities, projects or schemes in the areas to assist the community with
their lives or problems.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Lisa Barnes
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
268
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Name
Barnett
Margaret Beatty
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I was under the impression that this land is
protected by covenant. Greenspaces are important in the community and
government states that there should be 6 acres per 1000 population.
According to PPG17 if you take away recreational land it must be
replaced by equivalent. UDP states that Bolton has been classed as a
deprived area therefore we should have to retain all areas of at least
0.4hectares. This land has had no maintenance other than grass cutting
and if given proper drainage would be used more. It is already used by
Brazeley Street Football Club and Summer Play Groups, Dog Walkers
and joggers. Where would these people go? On the street?
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): My children and their friends enjoy playing
on the field and it would be a shame to lose it. Play schemes also make
use of the field in the summer. There are not many green spaces left.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
269
Name
Rachel Brindle
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I understand that the recreation field at Cedar Avenue has been earmarked for house building in the draft Allocations Plan. Under the
Planning Act 2008, recreational grounds in public ownership are
protected by law from development, and if built on the Council should
replace any recreational ground with the same or bigger in the same
area. Brazley, Claypool and New Chapel have high housing density with
busy roads due to the massive development of Middlebrook over the last
8-10 years and the proximity to Junction 6 of the M61. Any recreational
pockets of land are highly valued by the local community and very well
used.
I object to the building
of houses on Land 116SC (Cedar Avenue) because:
1. It will increase traffic density onto Claypool Road in an area already
notoriously dangerous for accidents (which is why the speed bumps were
put in) and my husband uses Claypool Road regularly to get access to
the M61.
2. My children
have used the recreation field for Beavers and Cubs activities, learning to
ride their bikes away from dangerous traffic and roads, Street Soccer
sessions in the summer holidays, cutting through from Claypool Road to
Ainsworth Avenue, to get fresh air away from traffic, bat watching,
football with friends away from people's houses, family games of
rounders and cricket where our garden is too small to enjoy such games.
I understand that a small area of the recreation field is boggy. This is
because of a probable broken drain which could easily be mended or the
boggy area which is adjacent to a wooded clough could be planted as a
wildflower meadow for the benefit of wildflowers and insects which the
children would enjoy looking at.
I would like to highlight the fact that there are strong community residents
associations in the area looking after the needs of their residents and
giving them a voice. These are Brazley Residents Association, New
Chapel Lane Residents Association and Claypool Residents Association.
There is enormous community spirit and a willingness to get together and
make the best of our housing estates in Horwich where we look after
each other and put on events for the community to enjoy.
In addition to this the National Planning Policy Framework urges
planners in their Local Plans to do the following (with specific reference
to numbered policies):
52: The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through
planning for large scale development.
74:
Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land,
including playing fields, should not be built on.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
270
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
75: Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way
and access.
76: Local
communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to
identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to
them. By designating land as Local Green Space...
77: The Local Green Space... is reasonably close proximity to the
community it serves... recreational value (including as a playing
field...local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
92: Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the
environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for
recreation and wildlife.
157: Crucially, Local Plans should... be based on co-operation with
neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector
organisations...
171: Health and well-being... Local Planning Authorities... take account of
the health status and needs of the local population (such as for sports,
recreation and places of worship)...
I understand there is enormous pressure on local authorities to ear-mark
land for housing, but I do not think that selling off small pockets of
recreational land around housing estates that are highly prized by the
local community or "in-filling" is the answer. With reference to 52, I agree
that planning for large scale development is a better way of meeting our
housing needs.
I hope my
concerns will be listened to and our recreation fields will not be ruined for
us and our children,
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
271
Council response
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
David Bromilow
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): This is the only green playing field in the
area for children to play. Surely this small area can be left as there are
many other areas to build on and I understand there are proposals to
build 1500 houses not far away (half a mile to a mile) on the Horwich
Loco Works site.
Amanda Butler
I am opposed to the proposed housing allocation at Cedar Avenue for
the following reasons:
*It
acts as a focal point for all the local children and adults.
*Families use it, St Elizabeth's Church uses it.
*Scouts use it for training with regards to football and other outdoor
activities.
*Dog walkers use it.
*Lads and dads use it for football and bring their own nets.
*Grandparents use it to play with their grandchildren.
*Teenagers use it in the summer to sun bathe.
*Local wildlife e.g. bats, birds including some rare types.
*Removal of this field will create untold damage to a successful
community.
*More traffic to add to an already chaotic situation, and an accident black
spot.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Christopher
Butler
I am opposed to the proposed housing allocation at Cedar Avenue for
the following reasons:
*Children play on it (all ages).
*Scouts use it.
*Dog walkers use it.
*Wildlife on it and around.
*More traffic on already congested roads.
*Children will have to play on the road.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
272
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
M Charlton
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): I object because I think there are too
many houses and flats in Horwich, quite a few of which are empty.
Lisa Clarkson
I object to the planning permission on Cedar Avenue playing field as the
kids use the field at the time, were would children play, its also used for
children's activities in the summer and dog walker. The road would be
bad for traffic as Claypool Road is bad enough now.
Frances Clemmitt
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Children have very little space to play around
here so they use the street which causes accidents. It is important we
have green spaces to soak water away to relieve the drains (flooding on
Chorley New Road). There are undeveloped brownfield plots.
Ray Collett
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Too much traffic, no dog walking
opportunities.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
273
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Coyne
Cedar Avenue (116SC): This is 'Greenbelt' land. A well used greenfield
site use by the local community. My child and his friends play here all
year long. Also, a natural habitat for much wildlife and plants. No to
building on this field!
Martyn
Cunningham
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Already overpopulated, traffic congestion Chorley New Road is a nightmare to try and turn on to now at any time of
day.
Justine Daules
Objection to Cedar Avenue recreational site, as this is the last big
community playing field in this part of Horwich
June Demellweek
I do not believe land at Cedar Avenue should be build on just because it
is not made full use of. Its is there to be used whenever. Too much of our
green land is built on. There are plenty of areas that could be cleared
and made use of instead of being left in derelict state.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
274
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Shirley
Derbyshire
Cedar Avenue (116SC): We cannot sell the houses that are up for sale
and rent now as no-one can afford mortgages. There are more and more
redundancies every week, plus there are going to be no playing areas
etc. for the kids
Pauline Eccles
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Object to this proposed allocation
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Shelli Edge
James Evans
Bolton Council
Organisation
Brazley Residents
Association
The land at Cedar Avenue was gifted to the people of Horwich for
recreational use. It is in constant use by local children and residents.
There are other sites in the vicinity - particularly on Claypool Road (which
is not maintained or apparently is use).
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Don’t do this! I walk my dogs there all the time!
Traffic would be mad!
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
275
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Stephen Farrell
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): An old lady left it in her will so they shouldn't
be able to sell it or do anything with it. There is a fishing pond in Leyland
that was left for the fishing people in Leyland and they can't do anything
with it so why is this any different?
Pauline Faulkes
Cedar Avenue (116SC): 1. It will devalue private property. 2 Claypool
road is over used and the avenues off are not only completely taken over
on match days but people, but people who work at the Reebok, park in
the avenue . The congestion is appalling some days. 3 There is very little
green space, this area is a play area is used by people with dogs, and is
the habitat for birds, foxes, squirrels and other wildlife.
Maria Faulkner
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): If more houses get built the children will have
nowhere to go and have "social times", which therefore means more
children will hang about on our streets and get into crime. To prevent this
from happening why, instead of building houses, don't you build a decent
play area for the children as it is of a vast size, therefore making the field
a decent play area.
Norman Fletcher
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I am opposed to this proposed housing
allocation for the following reasons:
*Children play on the land, keeping them safe from the very busy
Claypool Road and surrounding roads.
*Community asset.
*Scouts use it during summer.
*Parents take their children on the land.
*Village Green amenity.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
276
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Elaine FletcherCowen
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This land has been a "Village Green"
community amenity for decades enabling children to play safely, away
from Claypool Road, an accident black spot which is used as a rat run
between Chorley Old/New Roads, thus keeping them safe.
Schools, community groups and the council run events involving the
community and various groups during the summer.
Parents
and grandparents play with children and organise games, especially
during school holidays.
It is a
valued wildlife habitat and irreplaceable community asset.
Alan Foster
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Object to this proposed allocation
Valerie Gleave
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): There would be a lot more traffic. It would
spoil the area. There are already enough houses.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
277
Name
Dorothy Green
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Development of this land at Cedar Avenue will mean the loss of an
amenity for local people. The site is in use every day and all day by
someone, be it children playing, people walking dogs or just walking
across it. It is also used by church and community groups and has, in the
past, been used for cricket matches. This is the last open space in the
area for children to play freely. During the holidays they play endless
games of football, and sometimes even cricket and tennis. Where can they
do this when the space has gone? Where are the children from these new
houses going to play? No amount of play area provision by a developer
could furnish anything to match this. At least let us preserve some open
space for our children to run free, kick a ball about and enjoy themselves.
80 houses means 100 more cars at least, at a conservative estimate, on
top of those from the Swallowfield and Day Centre development, plus the
1000 or so houses proposed for the Loco Works site leading to a huge
increase in traffic on an already congested road. The site may be near a
bus service but I have used the bus to travel to work in Bolton for the last
17 years and can assure you that I, and sometimes a couple of others
(apart from 1 or 2 schoolchildren), was the only one catching the bus
most mornings. Why do you assume that the new residents will be any
more willing to use public transport than the existing ones? Unbelievably
the bus from Horwich to Middlebrook does NOT stop at the station.
Spare a thought too for pedestrians risking life and limb to cross Chorley
New Road, let alone the risk to health of breathing in the fumes from the
heavy traffic.
It is difficult to see how any development can maximise opportunities to
increase habitats and biodiversity, surely it destroys them. There are jays
and woodpeckers in the trees at the edge of the field in addition to the
more commonly seen birds such as long-tailed tits, robins, wrens and
greenfinches. Bats and voles are also present. There are also many wild
flowers.
Chorley New Road already gets flooded at the bottom of Claypool. How
much more flooded will it be without the 'sponge' of the field to absorb it?
I would hope that all the recreational open spaces identified in this
allocation plan can be kept free of development. These areas make a
town attractive for residents and visitors alike. When all these
recreational spaces are taken up with bricks and mortar Horwich will
have become a much less pleasant place to live.
A town does not just need housing it needs its trees, flowers and open
areas to promote a feeling of wellbeing and these spaces should be
preserved for future generations to benefit from.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
278
Name
Organisation
George Green
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Cedar Avenue
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
People walk dogs and children play football and other games, surely the
kind of play which should be encouraged. There is nowhere else nearby
with such good facilities.
Each house will have at least one car, increasing pollution and road
congestion. In the real world people with cars will use them rather than
the bus.
There will be more children. Will the schools be able to accommodate
them? More children need more open space in which to play; not less.
The surrounding trees and hedges are ideal for birds to nest, shelter and
find food. They also act as a safe corridor for birds and animals. The
small wood at the end attracts numerous species of birds and contain a
number of nesting boxes. I have recorded thirty five species of wild plant
and fifteen species of trees. There are also bats.
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): We need all space to let children play as it is,
not a lot of public green space
D Greenfield
Roy Greenhalgh
Bolton Council
Claypool Residents
Association
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc) has been used for cricket, football, sports and
recreation for over 50 years. Empty houses, shops and vacant units
should be filled before taking recreational facilities off our children.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
279
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kirsteen Grime
We strongly object to the land at Cedar Avenue being developed as we
specifically moved to this street in order for our three small children
(aged 5, 4 and 1) to be able to play safely on the field. This is the last big
community playing field in this part of Horwich and if it were to go, our
children would find themselves playing on the street or have nowhere to
play at all. It is an area for the whole community to play together and we
regularly use the field. Our children would be incredibly upset of they
were no longer able to use it.
Emily Grundy
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This is the only large green field left for
children to play, for summer activities, for sports etc. If more houses are
built there will be even more children - and nowhere to play safely.
Jacqueline
Hampson
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Object to this proposed allocation
Margaret
Harrison
Cedar Avenue (116SC): The field has always been well used for children
to play. This provides a safe area but also keeps them from playing in
less appropriate places. I believe there was a covenant on the land
stating that it wasn’t to be built on. As there is a building site on Chorley
New Road that has proved futile I cannot see any reason to take this field
away.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
280
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Robert Hart
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Children regularly play on the field in the
summer and is a valuable resource. There is already too much traffic
around Laburnum Grove, especially during football season) and this
would make the problem with parking much worse.
Hartley
Cedar Avenue (116SC): We object to building on green land as there are
not enough areas for children. There must also be a preservation order
on trees surrounding the field. Congestion on Cedar Avenue would make
this area a death trap for children and people going to church.
Improvements would need to be made to the water infrastructure.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Marjorie Hartley
Glenis Harwood
Bolton Council
Organisation
Claypool Residents
Association
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I was under the impression that the land had
been left by an old lady in her will for the sole purpose for children to
play. The land should not be built on.
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I object to this proposed allocation.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
281
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Bernadette
Holding
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): When I look out of my windows I can see
green grass and trees, which is one of the reasons I choose to live here.
I do not wish that view to vanish, then all I will be looking at are bricks
and mortar.
Wendy Hulme
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I am a youth club volunteer and use this area
regularly for activities. It is also used by children and OAP's.
Gary Hutchinson
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Too much traffic, will spoil view, nowhere for
children to play.
Arran Jackson
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I enjoy walking my dog and playing with her on
the field. I hope my children will be able to enjoy it also. I enjoy walking
with family when I visit.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
282
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ruth Jenkins
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Playing area used by local children/dog walkers.
There are already a number of children/young people who hang about in
my road and neighbouring roads. If there are even fewer places for them
to hang around, there will be more young people wandering the estate.
Also, the event organised last summer seemed to be very popular with
the local children and was easily accessible by them.
Janette Jones
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This was left by a resident for the people of
Horwich. As you know it used to be their pony paddock and a covenant
was put in place to protect it. The land is used regularly by many people.
We are supposed to be keeping fit - a local playing field is ideal for this. If
you need to build more houses the land where the Swallow Hotel used to
be would be an ideal site.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
283
Name
Barry Jubb
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I object to this proposal on the grounds that
this “Open Recreation Space” is protected by both local and national
planning policies. “Planning Policy Guidance 17” (PPG17) and Bolton
MBC’s own planning policies that are almost verbatim of PPG17 in their
protection of such spaces. The very fact that this space exists is
testimony to whatever previous legislation that was in place at the
inception of the surrounding estate.
Therefore any attempt to emasculate the policy protections for open
space found in provisions of the PPG17, should be fought because the
vision of “Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play is to ensure
that everyone – young or old, able or disabled and whether they live in
an urban or rural environment has access to free, local outdoor spaces
for all kinds of sport, play and recreation.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Plus there are your Key negative effects to overturn: 7.7 There are some allocations proposed on sites of recreational open
space and playing fields. Overall these sites do not score highly in the
sustainability appraisal for health and wellbeing, neighbourhood quality
and green infrastructure. This is due to the loss of recreational green
space, reducing opportunities for exercise. Availability and proximity to
green spaces has one of the biggest impacts on increasing physical
activity levels. Green spaces are essential to provide green lungs and
help to mitigate air pollution and associated respiratory diseases.
Reduction in urban green spaces and trees could result in a loss of
biodiversity and key recreation areas?
And to this end there is legislation in the making, ensuring that planning
applications made by a local authority for development of its own land
are not decided by that authority – thus avoiding any potential conflict of
interest.
On top of this the Transport Infrastructure around this area could not
support such a development, as illustrated by the fact that other
developments in the area have restrictions onto Chorley New Road,
which this proposed development would also do.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
284
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Sheelin Kane
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I object to this proposed allocation.
V Kane & Yates
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): We bought this house two years ago. One of
the main reasons for choosing Cedar Avenue was the playing field
opposite as we have three children and feel it is important to live where
they can play in the street and also because of the view from the living
room and kitchen window.
Lots of children in the area make use of the playing field as there is
nowhere else within close vicinity for them to play. Developing this land
will result in nowhere for the children who already live here to play which
could lead to children on the streets and anti-social behaviour. In addition
there will be more children living in the new houses.
This will also impact heavily on house prices and sellability should we
choose to move in the future.
The playing field at Cedar Avenue is covered by a covenant as it was
given by a lady for the use of children and young people. Please keep
green space.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Margaret Kay
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
285
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kenneth Killie
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I was given the impression that the playing
fields were left in a will for children to play on, not for houses to be built
on. It will be dangerous with more cars on the roads that lead to Claypool
Road. I have grandchildren and great grandchildren visiting me so I
hope in the future it will be safe for all children to play on.
David Kirk
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
286
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Brenda Laurie
The area (Cedar Avenue, site 116) is well used by all age groups and is
an asset to the local people. Building further housing and removing a
local facility will cause issues in the future with no play or recreation area
but more people! I have lived overlooking this field for 40 years and can
verify that it is well used, an integral part of the local community and has
been for a very long time - it would be a crime to take it away. It is not
regeneration at all. If something is not broken do not fix it!
Anne Lawson
The open land at Cedar Avenue is a rare green space and is used by
members of the surrounding community for a variety of purposes. It is a
greenfield site and should not be developed, not least because building
would be in conflict with the 'openness' of land that Bolton refer to in
section 6 . In section 6.1, the plan states the percentage of new building
should be 'at least 80% on previously developed land;' for Horwich and
Blackrod, 9 of the 21 proposals are greenfield, which means that only
just over half of them are scheduled for previously developed land. The
burden of those developments, and the developments that have already
taken place over the past few years have placed great strain on the few
remaining open spaces in existence; to take those too is short-sighted
and detrimental to all those living in the area. Children need safe, local
open spaces in which to play; people need green spaces as part of their
everyday well-being. These spaces need to be close to housing, so that
people can access them easily and quickly (i.e. big areas of park like
Jumbles and Smithills are fine, but useless for children if they have to be
accessed by car as a 'day out').
Bolton's plan also refers to a 'legacy of windfall sites becoming available
through the redevelopment of former built use;' so why encroach on
precious open greenfield land?
There has been recent documentary evidence of hundreds of buildings
left empty in our boroughs that could be easily and cheaply renovated
and brought back into use as viable housing stock, easing the pressure
on councils so they do not feel they need to encroach on greenfield sites.
Perhaps Bolton Council could find an alternative here in order to provide
housing.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
287
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Janet Leach
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Children use this land to play on (for
example football) and it helps keep them off the streets. The youth club
uses it on a Thursday too. It would be wrong to stop the children using it.
Nyki Lee-Barr
Cedar Avenue (116SC): The council has already spent thousands on
traffic calming measures. However the area suffices enough at school
times and on match days with an influx of cars. It causes gridlocks and
problems with buses. We have no wish for even more traffic or to be
overlooked and have houses crammed into every seemingly available
space. On the whole, apart from the times already mentioned, this is a
nice quiet area and the people round here enjoy it as it is. Money should
never be put before peoples quality of life!
John Leyland
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This land was given to the community and
there is a covenant on the land. This is a green space which is well used
by the community (there are a set of goal posts on the field), it would be
used more if the council maintained it better. This really is a green space
the community cannot allow to be built on.
1. PPG17 states that if recreation land is taken away for a different use, it
should be replaced with the same amount of land or greater in the same
area.
2. The 6 acre strategy states there should be 6 acres of free land per
1000 population.
3. All recreation land above 0.4 hectares is protected.
4.In the UDP Bolton is classified as a deprived area, therefore all open
green spaces should remain protected.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
288
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Christina LLoyd
I think it is ridiculous to take away land where children play (Cedar
Avenue, site 116sc) when there is council land on the left hand side
going down Claypool Road which is an eyesore and not used for
anything. Shops or houses/flats could be built on this land, the nearest
shops are at Middlebrook. This project is all about money.
Alison Maclean
Cedar Avenue (116SC): We need more green space to give children
safe places to play.
A. A. Mason
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I find it unbelievable that Bolton Council want
to build on every bit of green or protected land in Horwich. It would make
more sense to re-furbish any old and dis-used properties i.e. closed
pubs, army barracks and empty houses. This would have less of a
carbon footprint and less new materials would have to be made. The
sewerage and utilities infrastructure is already there. I thought the
government wanted people to exercise more? How is this possible when
you keep building on land for that exact purpose?!!!
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
289
Name
Maxine MellorBrook
Vera Miller
Peter Mills
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
The land at Cedar Avenue, Horwich is a centre point for the community,
bringing together local residents for community activities and events,
allowing neighbours to get to know each other and share interests. This
community sprit instils a sense of belonging and builds strong social
relationships which in turn helps prevent anti-social behaviour. Children
are kept off the roads and street corners and able to play safely together.
The community as a whole; families, Beaver and Scout groups, various
local organisations, St. Elizabeth's Church, dog walkers all benefit from
this land, taking part in communal sports, dog walking and other
activities. Children play various sports / activities throughout the year
keeping them active and mobile which has been the focus of government
and will continue to be so.
Building on this land will prove
detrimental to the neighbourhood and so is strongly objected to.
Cedar Avenue (116SC): This playing field is the only bit of green open
space In our tightly built up area. People use this for recreation (may be
not so much in the winter, but to take this away from the community is
unfair)
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): This is recreational land for everyone to
use (at the moment in a muddy state due to the councils lack of
maintenance). We believe that there should be 6 acres of land per 1000
population to use. If this land is taken away it should be replaced with the
same amount of land, in the same area. As Bolton has been classed as a
deprived area, surely all open green spaces should remain protected,
and all recreational land is protected if above 0.4 acres.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
290
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Susan Naylor
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This playing field should stay as it is, it is
there for children and families to play on. If you take the field away where
will the children go and what will they do? Turn to Crime
Andrew
Openshaw
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Few left open spaces, traffic, plenty of other
options, nature conservation
Lucy Openshaw
Cedar Avenue (116SC): As a child, I would play on the field with my
cousins, there's not much left of green in Horwich. We don’t need more
houses being built, there are plenty of houses that need work on. More
traffic will be horrific also. Please don’t take our playing fields.
Saria Patel
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I live near the playing field which children
play on and that is what it should remain. More traffic will be bad for the
area. It will also cause children to wander all over the place and there
could be accidents caused with more cars and lorries on the roads.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
291
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Michelle PenfoldIvany
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): This is a lovely open grassy area for the
people in the local community. With it being so open it is a safe place for
children to play and nice for dog walking
Paul John Phillips
I totally object to any proposed building on the land in Cedar Avenue. My
wife and I have lived in Cedar Avenue for 22 years and when we
purchased our house, we bought it on the understanding that as advised
by our solicitor there is a covenant on the land and so there can never be
any building on it. Therefore how can this be revoked as a covenant is
something that cannot be broken. As we live opposite the land we see
daily how it is used. Joggers use it together with dog walkers. Children
play on the field constantly as it is the only large piece of land available
for them to play on in the area that is safe. If children did not have this
area to play on, I dread to think what would happen. This could only
result in bored youngsters getting up to mischief because there is nothing
else to do. I think we owe it to our young people to allow them some
freedom to run around and play as children should. There are many
games of football played on the field and until the last few years, there
were Saturday cricket matches played there. In the summer the field is
host to many picnics and games by children from the organisations of St
Elizabeth's Church who use it often such as the scouts, brownies and
after school care organisations. The community centre also uses the field
for the people they care for with regard to recreational benefits. People
come from the larger community to use this space. The greenfield
provides an aesthetic place in a busy area such as the Beehive
Roundabout and Middlebrook Shopping Centre. The land is also the
home of many mature trees and wildlife in the form of many varieties of
birds squirrels and even geese. I personally feel that other areas that
have long since been neglected should be visited with a view to build the
required housing, for example land adjacent to the old Horwich Loco
Works and not the oasis of tranquil calm that is there for everyone to
enjoy.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
292
Name
Organisation
Thomas Pimbley
George Platt
Brazley Residents
Association
Comment Summary
Council response
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Not acceptable
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
The playing fields at Cedar Avenue, Horwich have been used as playing
fields for over 52 years. Horwich Town Cricket Team played there and I
was a member of that team. The site is still used to this day as a playing
field and I object strongly to it being built on for housing as this is the only
field in Brazley for everybody to play sports on for free.
Arnold Pontefract
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Entirely outrageous, and unlawful. There are
plenty of brown sites available in Bolton, leave Horwich/Blackrod alone. I
am disgusted that this site would even be mentioned.
Victoria Price
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Nowhere for children to play, heavy traffic and
danger to children. Spoil View
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
293
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Keith Pulford
Cedar Avenue (116SC) is used regularly by dog walkers and children. It
is also used for sport. Development would result in further disruption on
Claypool Road
Thelma Purdy
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): When I bought this house in 1980 I
understood there was a covenant on the land that it could not be built on.
To do so would de-value the properties on Cedar Avenue. The field is
used for cricket and football and the Brownies and Beavers for their
activities. Young families, with young children, have moved onto Cedar
Avenue. It would be a pity to deprive them of the beautiful field to play
on. There are not many green spaces left in Horwich. Please leave some
of them for the people to enjoy.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Marjorie Rice
Kathleen Robson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Brazley Residents
Association
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Horwich does not have enough roads, doctors,
dentists, schools to take on more residents. The people who would live in
these houses will need not only these but also parking spaces and above
all green spaces. Where will these green spaces be if they have been
built on? 1600 houses to be built on Horwich Loco works. isn't that
enough.
Cedar Avenue (116SC): We need to preserve as much of our
greenspaces as possible. We cannot keep filling our open land with
concrete. Where will it end? There is also the issue of traffic congestion
on Chorley New Road. Too many new properties have been built in this
area recently. Why build on more greenspace when the Swallowfield site
has been abandoned?
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
294
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Emma Rushton
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Too many houses are being built in the area.
There are not enough schools to cope with increased population. Roads
are too busy.
Michael Rutter
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): The development would have a massively
negative effect on the surrounding area and resources. There would be:
*Increased noise and traffic on roads that already can't cope.
*Increased pressure on school places.
*More youths roaming around at night.
*Loss of green, recreational area.
*Impact on wildlife
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Richard Shirres
Organisation
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
Cedar Avenue (116SC): We object to the wholesale inclusion of this area
as an allocation.
We consider that these playing fields maintained regularly by Bolton
MBC, as aerial survey testifies, are in important asset for the local
community.
Along the western side of the fields runs a watercourse and limited semiwilded areas that provide a valuable amenity.
The Civic Trust would only countenance very limited exploitation of this
land for housing if it were ‘affordable’ and there was some enhancement
of local habitat and landscape.
Please see also the general strategic point about the failure to highlight
the principal watercourse corridors across the Draft Bolton Allocations
Plan and the above argument may be relevant to similar sites across
Bolton which the author is not aware of but for which there may be
potential for deculverting - provided ecological network continuity is
highlighted.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
295
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Silvester
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I object to this land being a part of the draft
allocation as a Ward Councillor as this is a green field site and used as
recreational land. It has been recreational land used by local people and
in particular those of the Claypool estate for a very long time. It loss
would be detrimental to the local community.
There is also a covenant protecting this land to be used as recreational
land for the local community.
I cannot support its loss as a Ward Councillor.
Joyce Slack
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Traffic - too much parking. Emergency
services can't get through. It is a playing field for all ages.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
296
Name
Slater
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Cedar Avenue (116SC): More houses, more people, more children, more
traffic. All these need more amenities, more school places and more and
better roads. Claypool Road has become a busy street from being a
country lane and will become a main thoroughfare from top of Chorley
Old Road, New Chapel Lane down to Claypool Road and Chorley New
Road. This has happened since Middlebrook, Reebok Stadium and
Arcon Village have been built and now a new estate of houses etc. will
only make it worse. There is no other cut through and the speed bumps
and signs have little effect. Nobody seems to know its a 20mph area cars and motor bikes and large vans 30m up an down. Where is all Less
greenland, less amenities, no playing areas. Less wildlife. If Councillors
saw Chorley New Road in the daytime they will see the queues of traffic
approaching the Beehive Roundabout from Horwich. There should be
roads through to Middlebrook - perhaps opposite Greenwood and
Victoria Road. All traffic from Horwich and beyond have to come all along
Chorley New Road to Beehive for shops etc. The Council should hang on
to the few remaining green areas for the good and wellbeing of the
people of Horwich and Bolton etc. A bit of green land goes a long way to
make pleasant surroundings in our every day lives. The council just
concentrate on money and policies. Cedar Field would be used more if it
was drained properly and made pleasant to walk across and for children
to play football. Trees edging Cedar Avenue have lots of birds and
squirrels etc. So wildlife would have to move as well. There are already
houses being built all over Horwich - near British Aerospace - Horwich
Loco Works, RMI Club etc. Have all these been sold? Before you start
building more, will these all be used? The empty flats, houses, pubs and
shops in Horwich should be developed first into attractive
accommodation before any new building is done, instead of the town
centre looking a mess, with empty premises. A prime e.g. is the
greenwood pub being pulled down. This Victorian building would have
made a grand apartment block or even a nursing home if any thought
had been given to refurbishing it.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
297
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Adrian Smethurst
The land at Cedar Avenue (site 116sc) is a popular and all too infrequent
'green space' used extensively by the local community for recreation,
particularly during the spring, summer and autumn by organisations such
as the brownies, after school clubs , local children's football groups for
training, dog walkers, and general recreation.
James Smith
Cedar Avenue (116SC): This land was given to the community and there
is a covenant on the land. This is a greenspace which is well used by the
community. It would be used more if the council maintained it better. This
land is a feeding area for the community of bats that frequent the area. 1.
PPG17 states that if recreation land is taken away for a different use it
should be replaced with the same amount of land or greater in the same
area. 2 The 6 acre strategy states there should be 6 acres of free land
per 1000 population. 3 All recreation land above 0.4 acres is protected. 4
In the UDP, Bolton is classified as a deprived area. Therefore all open
green spaces should remain protected.
Cedar Avenue (116SC): This plot of land is used for walking, playing
sport and generally community recreation. It provides a great opportunity
to create a community.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Peter Smith
Vera Southern
Bolton Council
Organisation
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): Already too much traffic, nowhere for
children to play or walk or to walk dogs.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
298
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Derek
Stephenson
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I believe this land to be protected by a covenant
to maintain it as Green Belt and for leisure. Additionally: 1. This is the last
big community playing field in the area. 2. Where else will children go for
play/exercise. 3. One of the last few areas of Horwich where you can
have peace and quiet. 4. Traffic concerns if more houses built here. 5.
Devaluing of current homes. 6. More children roaming the streets etc.
Gordon Stone
Cedar Avenue (116SC): 1. The plan would remove the only common
residential land in the area. 2.The field is well used by local residents and
children. 3. Vehicle traffic is already too great on Claypool Road. Building
more houses would make this worse.
Julie Stone
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I am a boarderer for guide dogs in training and
regularly use this land to exercise them. The alternative is to drive them
somewhere else in the car using petrol and causing pollution. Children
also use the land to play.
Bev Strang
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): Community playing fields are required in
this residential area. There is not enough green space here. It is a very
well used resource - church, uniformed organisations, clubs etc., along
with dog walkers, kids playing etc.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
299
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Marie Taylor
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): My children play on this field and it is a
valued green space in an otherwise busy built up area.
Lucy Taylor
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I am opposed to this proposed housing
allocation for the following reasons:
Children play on the field safely.
*People take dogs for regular walks here.
*Scouts go on the field during summer.
*Families play games on the field.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
*
Raymond
Thornley
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Green Belt Area. Traffic congestion in roads.
Intrusion of long time pleasant area - very few left in the area. Lowering
of house values. Wildlife area, and play area for children, and foremost
the covenant that was placed on this land, is it being overlooked or
ignored?
David Thornton
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Any proposed building should have to use
existing brownfield sites of which there are many. Taking green space is
unacceptable.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
300
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
John Turner
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I like the field at the back of the house and
so do not want houses built there.
John Turner
May I add my fervent support to the view of the Brazley, Claypool and
New Chapel Residents Association that the field on Cedar
Avenue/Claypool Road becomes a Village Green or something of that
kind for children to use and not a housing site. Why not adapt (and
purchase?) the other site on Chorley New Road/Ainsworth area which
was once a hotel and is now in chaos.
Christine
Vespasiani
Cedar Avenue (116SC): The area us already built up. The playing field is
about the same size as the former Brierfield Hotel site on Chorley New
Road, which has been suspended. Why not develop on that site? This
proposal has obviously not been thought through.
Barbara Wallace
Cedar Avenue (116SC): The football field used regularly. There must be
other sites available that are less built up. Chorley New Road is already
choked with traffic, and there are a lot of other building projects in
process, or in the pipeline.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
301
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
John Westwell
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I have lived in this area for over 50 years. As
a youngster I spent many hours playing sports on this playing field.
Today I spend time on the same field with my grandchildren who also live
locally. Losing this facility would be a great loss to our local community,
plus any further housing development would increase congestion we see
every day in this area. I believe we should be developing established
recreational areas for our children's future and not using them as a quick
fix for the present housing shortage.
Michelle
Whitehead
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): I have lived on Claypool for 20 years, my
garden gate leads on to the field. My grandchildren play on there, and I
walk my dogs. In summer it is an ideal spot for families to have picnics
and enjoy. Also we have bats every evening flying around, and crested
newts in the stream & in my pond. Plus water voles.
Jane Whittle
Cedar Avenue (116SC): When I moved here 21 years ago, we were told
there was a covenant on the land at Cedar and it was for the local
residents to enjoy. It is used by many local people everyday, walking
with/without their dogs, brownies/cubs, church groups, after school clubs
and holiday clubs. It is a have for wildlife, birds and at nights has bats
flying around. Not only do we as people have little enough green space
but we need to protect it for them too. No more houses round here
please. Roads over loaded already. Please find some derelict land
instead.
David Whittle
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I strongly object to any building proposals on
land opposite Cedar Avenue. This land is open green recreational land, it
seems that Bolton Council will build on any scrap of land. We will have
no spaces left for children and adults to use as they wish, our roads can
no longer support any more cars and building more houses would mean
more cars.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
302
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ken Whowell
The land at Cedar Avenue (site 116SC) has been used for recreation by
the community for decades. It is still used regularly and should remain so
for the health, well-being and enjoyment of future generations. There are
numerous brownfield sites in Horwich, our greenfield areas should
remain greenfield.
Laura Wiggins
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): There is already too much traffic and parking
on Claypool Road because of the nearby school. Lots of people walk
their dogs and I see lots of children playing.
Glenn Wilkes
Cedar Avenue (116SC): Only Green area left around this area, for
children and groups to use for pleasure. People with dogs enjoy the open
space. Do we really need more houses? It such a small piece of 'haven'
Leanne Wilkes
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I lived on Claypool road as a child and my
parents still live there. I think there maybe a covenant on it. Children's
Play area. Wildlife Area. There will be more traffic, already too much and
too many houses being built in Horwich. What about the church? Where
would groups and children play?
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
303
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Natalie Wilkinson
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): The field provides a safe, secure place for
local children to play and people to walk dogs. If this field was taken from
us children would become a "nuisance" to local residents by playing
football etc. in the streets which also poses a risk for said children.
John Williams
Cedar Avenue (116SC): 1. I was told by Bolton Council Planning
Department that there were no plans to build on this site in 2004. 2.
Residential development commenced at Chorley New Road,
Swallowfield Hotel and British Aerospace yet have ceased. Why not
complete these and leave this land as it is. 3. This land is subject to a
covenant. 4. The land at Cedar Ave is a vital part of our community and
is used for sport and for children to play.
Stephen
Wolstencroft
I strongly object to building on the land at Cedar Avenue. This is the last
open space for use by the community and we should keep it. In addition,
new houses would only worsen the already heavy traffic congestion in
the area of Chorley New Road.
Emma Wood
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I object to this proposed allocation.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
304
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Jacqueline Wright
Cedar Avenue (116SC): There are no other open spaces in the area and
it is used by families. It would increase the volume of traffic on Claypool
Road. Green spaces should be protected for future generations.
Sidney
Cedar Avenue (site 116sc): My dog and son plays on the field with my
son and children like playing there.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Two Towns Area Forum
Bolton Council
Land at Cedar Avenue (116SC): Loss of open space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
305
Name
Elizabeth
Broderick
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Site 122SC (Crown Lane) contributes positively to the street scene along
Crown Lane. It is used by local people informally for recreation and its
loss for a handful of houses would be a disappointment. This is a site
that should be enhanced for recreation as it has the potential to be a
really attractive and well used pocket park in an accessible position for
many people on this side of Horwich. Again the current green space is of
greater social and environmental benefit than the development of a few
houses on this site.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
There may be scope to retain mature
trees and landscaping to assist in
retaining the character of the area and
the prominent road frontage will
necessitate good design.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
There may be scope to retain mature
trees and landscaping to assist in
retaining the character of the area and
the prominent road frontage will
necessitate good design. Historic
associations could be investigated and
if necessary incorporated in some way.
I propose that the site be retained as recreational open space.
Barry Jubb
Bolton Council
Crown Lane, Horwich (site 122sc): I object to the loss of this Greenspace
because it was created by infilling a delph, in which a boy drowned in the
mid Fifties and one of the reasons it was left as Greenspace, was in his
memory.
Plus there are your Key negative effects to overturn: 7.7 There are some allocations proposed on sites of recreational open
space and playing fields. Overall these sites do not score highly in the
sustainability appraisal for health and wellbeing, neighbourhood quality
and green infrastructure. This is due to the loss of recreational green
space, reducing opportunities for exercise. Availability and proximity to
green spaces has one of the biggest impacts on increasing physical
activity levels. Green spaces are essential to provide green lungs and
help to mitigate air pollution and associated respiratory diseases.
Reduction in urban green spaces and trees could result in a loss of
biodiversity and key recreation areas
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
306
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
John Whitehead
Bolton Council
A.E.Yates Ltd
Comment Summary
Council response
Crown Lane (122SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Crown Lane (site 122sc): Mr Whitehead would like to support the
allocation of this site for future residential development. It is understood
that any representations received will be considered in order to assist in
the production of the forthcoming Allocations Plan: Development Plan
Document (DPD). Please ensure that I continue to be notified about this
and other Local Development Framework (LDF) consultation documents.
The site to which these representations refer is located within the urban
area of Horwich and has been given the reference number 122SC and it
is proposed for future residential development.
Site 122SC is identified in the Draft Allocations Plan: Development Plan
Document consultation as being a suitable site to be allocated for
residential development. The document estimates that 16 dwellings
could be delivered at the site. As the site is measures 0.45 hectares this
would equate to a density of approximately 35 dwellings per hectare.
This number of residential properties (16) would not result in
overdevelopment in Horwich but could be considered an infill
development. Sixteen dwellings or less on the site would be compatible
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
There may be scope to retain mature
trees and landscaping to assist in
retaining the character of the area and
the prominent road frontage will
necessitate good design.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
307
Support noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
with the character of development in the surrounding area. The
residential development of the site would contribute to the Bolton’s
housing delivery requirements as identified in the Council’s adopted Core
Strategy (March 2011).
Constraints
The site was intended to be taken over by the Council as Public Open
Space under the provisions of a S106 agreement linked to the residential
development on Marsh Street. However, the Council declined to accept
the land and the owner retained it.
The site does not lie in an area that is at risk of flooding and the drainage
from any development could be connected to main system on Crown
Lane.
There are no mature trees on the site although there are a number of
semi mature trees and bushes on the boundaries. These are considered
to be of useful amenity value and could be retained in a residential
development. The levels difference between the site and Marsh Street
could be addressed by careful attention to the layout and location of
windows in proposed houses.
Access
Vehicular access to the site can be easily achieved. Crown Lane is a
fairly straight and level road. Satisfactory visibility splays can be provided
at the
entrance to the site – this has been confirmed by the Council’s Highway
Engineers.
Suitability
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) (June 2010) underpins the
delivery of the Government’s strategic housing policy objectives.
Paragraph 24
of PPS3 identifies the criteria for identifying deliverable sites that are
considered to be able to be delivered in the next 5 years. To be
considered deliverable, sites should:
• Be Available – the site is available now.
• Be Suitable – the site offers a suitable location for development now
and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
• Be Achievable – there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be
delivered on the site within five years.
Based on the above criteria the site is achievable as it could be delivered
well within in five years. The whole of the land is available and the owner
of the site is committed to ensuring its availability. The site is suitable for
residential development as highlighted above. The site can therefore be
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
308
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
described as deliverable and it is appropriate that it is identified in the
draft DPD and should be included in the final Allocations Plan.
National Planning Policy Framework (draft)
On 25th July 2011 the Government published the draft National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) and this has the effect of changing much of
the previous advice on such developments. The NPPF is to be the centre
piece of the Government’s reforms to the planning system in England. It
will provide a single policy framework, consolidating and replacing the
existing national guidance in the form of PPGs and PPSs.
As well as a simplified policy agenda and economic growth the key
objectives at the heart of the NPPF are:
• Emphasis on a positive and proactive planning process
• Presumption in favour of sustainable development
• Removal of the brownfield target for housing development
• An additional 20% housing sites
• A clear expectation that acceptable development should be approved
and not unnecessarily delayed
The removal of the brownfield target may impact on sites brought forward
for housing development in the local plan and in Bolton’s case Policy
SC1.2 of the Core Strategy which requires 80% of housing development
to be on previously developed land. Local councils will now be able to
allocate sites that they consider are the most suitable for development
without being constrained by a national brownfield target. It is contended
that the Crown Lane site is just such as site and it is situated in a highly
sustainable location.
In addition, the
Government’s policy objective is that local councils should plan to meet
their full requirement for housing and ensure there is choice and
competition in the land market to facilitate the delivery of homes on the
ground.
The preferred option in the NPPF is that local councils should identify
additional ‘deliverable’ sites for housing. The proposal is for this to be a
minimum additional 20 per cent on top of current five year land supply.
For example, in the first five years, local councils should identify sites to
meet at least 120% of the annual housing requirement.
Given the new guidance in the NPPF it is considered that the site on
Crown Lane should form part of the additional 20%.
Whilst it is appreciated that the NPPF is still a consultation document
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
309
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
and, therefore, subject to potential amendment, nevertheless it gives a
clear indication of the Government’s direction of travel’ in planning policy.
In view of the above and the changing policy surrounding residential
development sites, sustainability, previously developed land targets and
increased housing allocations I support the identification of this site and
request that it site remain in the Allocations Plan for housing.
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Dealey Road - Higher Dean (41SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
310
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
There may be scope to retain mature
trees to assist in retaining the
character of the area.
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Dean Close, Kearsley (93SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public space.
The site currently provides an open
green space, of fairly low amenity
value and there are potential benefits
from residential development.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
311
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Deepdale Road, Breightmet (62SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public space.
The site currently provides an open
green space, of fairly low amenity
value and there are potential benefits
from residential development.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
312
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Earls Farm, Stitch Mi Lane (71SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
This site consists of remnant
agricultural land and farm buildings
used as a cattery, stables and kennels,
so a mixture of greenfield land and
buildings. Redevelopment if these
uses cease would bring about physical
improvements to the area.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
313
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Bolton Council
Comment Summary
Council response
Edges Farm (111SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Eskrick Street (11SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor along the
River Croal/Middle Brook and as such should be protected under Core
Strategy policy CG2.
This site consists of remnant
agricultural land, run-down and vacant
farm buildings and farmhouse. It has
planning consent for housing and will
bring land back into productive use.
Former Atlantis Nightclub (9SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor
along Eagley Brook/River Tonge and as such should be protected under
Core Strategy policy CG2.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
314
The primary function of wildlife
corridors is to provide a network of
urban open land to support habitats
and species. Most of the corridor will
unaffected open and development of
the site will have to ensure that
continuity of the corridor is not
affected, retention of any valuable
trees could contribute as well as
providing amenity value.
This site has planning permission and
is under-development. The wildlife
corridors in the vicinity are largely tied
to the river corridors and will have
been taken into account at the
planning application stage.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Thomas Brown
Garthmere Road (48SC): This development on the plot suggested would
add more houses there than there are in total on the road accessing it,
this road Garthmere road has not been constructed to take the extra
volume of traffic which would occur as a result of this development
David Kirk
Garthmere Road (48SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
315
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Barrie May
Garthmere Road (48SC): I object to the development of up to 15 houses
on this site. A previous planning application for ONE Bungalow on this
site was rejected because the drains were not big enough to cope with
the extra load, so how will they be able to cope with up to 15 houses.
Only last year a number of workmen spent about 3 days trying to trace
the route of the drains from Garthmere House but failed. (2)The water
pressure to the existing houses is not brilliant. Will it be able to cope with
more premises?.{3}Garthmere Road is only narrow and would struggle to
contain any more traffic. { (4)It is a nightmare to get out of Wellington
Road onto Newbrook Road at peak times, it would be horrendous if
another 30 cars (assuming minimum of 2 per house)were to add to the
congestion. It would be sacrilege to demolish Garthmere House which is
part of the areas mining history, being built for and lived in by the
Fletchers & Burrows families, who were the owners of the local mines.
Kristina Moss
Garthmere Road (48SC): I would like to express my objections to the
above. We moved into number 6 Garthmere in July 2011 and the main
reason for purchasing the house was it's quiet, peaceful location. We
have 3 children aged 11, 5 and 2 years. The road is a cul de sac and
therefore safe for my children to play out. It is therefore of great concern
to me that 15 houses being built would mean that approx. 20-30 extra
cars would be coming up and down the road, presenting grave danger to
my children and other young children who live on the road who presently
play safely.
We would therefore like to make it absolutely clear that we oppose the
planning allocation decision.
Please keep us informed of any further consultations regarding this
building allocation.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
316
Name
Organisation
Harry Ward
Comment Summary
Council response
There are currently ten houses in the whole of Garthmere Road,
characterised by very large garden plots and an abundance of mature
protected trees in a very narrow thoroughfare. The proposed
development would completely change the character of the
neighbourhood and at least triple the volume of traffic along an already
narrow road with its inherent problems for the residents, particularly
children at play. This would be exacerbated during any building phase
when contractors traffic and heavy machinery would be using both
Wellington Road and Garthmere Road for access with the additional
problem of debris and mud on the road. Further, joining Newbrook Road
from Wellington Road even now is very difficult; the consequent increase
in traffic created by this development would probably require some traffic
control at that junction adversely impacting on an already congested
road.
Redevelopment of this house and
extensive gardens will need to take
into account the nature of the
surrounding area which is
characterised by very low density
housing set in sizeable gardens. As
importantly trees on the site are
protected by a Tree Preservation
Order and any removal will have to be
well justified. The illustrative capacity
of 15 dwellings suggests the need for a
very low density housing scheme
which takes these factors into
consideration and the requirement for
high quality design.
The primary function of wildlife
corridors is to provide a network of
urban open land to support habitats
and species. Development of the site
will have to ensure that continuity of
the corridor is not affected, this could
be through provision of some open
space or boundary treatment to the
railway. The River Croal forms a
natural link into the more open areas of
Queens Park.
Gilnow Mill was considered through
the Mills Assessment process which
concluded that the mill was worthy of
retention and re-use.
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Gilnow Gardens (21SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor along the
River Croal/Middle Brook and as such should be protected under Core
Strategy policy CG2.
Judith Nelson
English Heritage
Gilnow Mill is listed. What appraisal process has been undertaken to help
inform decisions on the balance between conservation, refurbishment
and re-use or demolition and new build.
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Gilnow Mill (23SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor along the River
Croal/Middle Brook and as such should be protected under Core
Strategy policy CG2.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
317
Gilnow Mill is listed so conversion is
the most appropriate re-use for the
site. It lies adjacent to the wildlife
corridor so any other development will
not affect its continuity.
Name
David Kirk
Richard Platt
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Gorses Road, Breightmet (85SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Gorses Road, Darcy Lever (site 85SC): For the last 20 years a private
developer has tried to build on this site. The Planning Inspector has
refused permission on at least two occasions for a number of reasons.
This particular site has a lot of history.
This railway cutting is previously
developed land which has been
subject to some natural regeneration
since closure of the railway many
years ago. Development for housing
would bring this land back into
productive use and form a logical
extension to nearby housing, although
the relationship with Leverhulme Park
will require careful design. Although
the most recent appeal was dismissed
this was solely on the basis of impact
on character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
318
This railway cutting is previously
developed land which has been
subject to some natural regeneration
since closure of the railway many
years ago. Development for housing
would bring this land back into
productive use and form a logical
extension to nearby housing, although
the relationship with Leverhulme Park
will require careful design. Although
the most recent appeal was dismissed
this was solely on the basis of impact
on character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Peter Mills
All green spaces in Horwich should remain protected. Development
would result in heavier traffic on Chorley New Road, increased demand
for school places, welfare etc., plus increased recreational facilities. Our
children need somewhere to play, our young people need somewhere to
meet, our older people need to meet together, and we all need
somewhere where all ages meet together. We must save our green
spaces or they will be lost forever.
Sylvia Mayor
Hayward School Site, Lever Edge Lane, Lever Edge (site 25sc): On b/h
of residents of Lever Edge Lane. We urge you to think about what
buildings are still left and save them from being knocked down. Bolton
Council have to save over £100m over the next four years. We would like
to point out that the buildings still standing are worth just as much, if not
more than the present ones that have been built or are now completed.
Could you not have renovated the existing buildings? Could you have not
saved them from the utter devastation that we all witness. Hayward was
not allowed a swimming pool because of subsidence, so why are houses
being allowed to be built on here? To build affordable housing on this
would cause severe subsidence to nearby properties.
Hayward School Site, Lever Edge Lane, Lever Edge (site 25sc): Whilst
we appreciate there is a need for more social/affordable housing in many
areas we do have some serious concerns regarding the impact of traffic
on Lever Edge Lane. This is already a very busy road with two schools in
the vicinity.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. The consequences for
education and traffic of development
are being considered through the
development of the Allocations Plan.
The former school buildings have been
cleared and this is a previously
developed site. Re-use for housing
complies fully with the Core Strategy
and will bring unused land back into
productive use.
Margaret Platt
Bolton Council
Organisation
Roseneath Area
Residents Association
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
319
The former school buildings have been
cleared and this is a previously
developed site. Re-use for housing
complies fully with the Core Strategy
and will bring unused land back into
productive use.
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Higher Ridings (55SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
The site has value as open space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
320
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
Linda Challender
Barry Jubb
Bolton Council
Horwich Town Council
Comment Summary
Council response
Highfield Road (92SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
There is concern about arrangements for access to proposals for
development in Highland Road
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public space.
The site currently provides an open
green space of limited value and there
are potential benefits from residential
development.
I object to the proposed allocation for housing on Highland Road,
Horwich (site 118SC) because the borders of this site encompass
existing housing and to develop further the site would require some rejigging of the estate for very little increase in dwelling numbers. On top of
this the proposal would result in the loss of some amenity green space
which is protected by legislation.
This proposed development also shows how departments within Bolton
MBC do not talk to one another, because the local residents association
have been given permission by Bolton at Home to turn the enclosed area
within this site into a Community Garden, having been granted Five
thousand pounds to help them do so.
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
321
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
Name
John Leyland
Peter Mills
Richard Silvester
James Smith
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Highland Road (site 118sc) belongs to Bolton At Home, who have
agreed to provide a sum of £5000 to establish a community garden on
part of this land in partnership with Brazley Residents' Association. It is
likely that this scheme will be extended to the rest of the land at a later
date. This land has no vehicular access, therefore, any building project
would first require a house to be demolished to gain access. How is this
land classified as "Brownfield"?
1. PPG17 states that if recreation land is taken away for a different use, it
should be replaced with the same amount of land or greater in the same
area.
2. The 6 acre strategy states there should be 6 acres of free land per
1000 population.
3. All recreation land above 0.4 hectares is protected.
4.In the UDP Bolton is classified as a deprived area, therefore all open
green spaces should remain protected.
Highland Road (118SC): Currently there is only pedestrian access to this
land, so unless Bolton Council knock down houses there is no access to
build. The council should be aware that Brazley Residents Association
have planning permission to create a community garden on 50% of the
land and the Council/Bolton at home have granted £5,000 towards this
project. There should be 6 acres of free land per 1000 population.
Highland Road, Horwich (Site 118sc): I object as a Ward Councillor to
this parcel of land been allocated as there is an agreement that this land
can be used as community allotments or a community garden by
residents of the Brazley estate.
Its loss would be detrimental to the community and residents of the
Brazley estate as these residents do need a community garden area.
Bolton At Home have granted £5000 towards this project.
I support this community garden scheme as a Ward Councillor which
would obviously not go ahead if this area of land in 118SC were to be
built on.
Highland Road, Horwich (Site 118sc): This land belongs to Bolton At
Home, who have agreed to provide a sum of £5000 to establish a
community garden on part of this land in partnership with Brazeley
residents association. It is likely that the scheme will be extended to the
rest of the land at a later date. This land has no vehicular access,
therefore any building project would first require a house to be
demolished to gain access. How is this land classified as brownfield?
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
322
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
The site is too difficult to develop
because of topography and access.
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
Judith Nelson
Bolton Council
English Heritage
Comment Summary
Council response
Holcombe Close, Kearsley (83SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Holden Mill is listed. What appraisal process has been undertaken to
help inform decisions on the balance between conservation,
refurbishment and re-use or demolition and new build.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public space.
The site currently provides an open
green space, of fairly low amenity
value and there are potential benefits
from residential development.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
323
The conversion of this listed mill is
already underway and appropriate
consideration was undertaken through
planning and listed building consent
processes.
Name
Stephen Pickup
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
As Horwich & Blackrod ward councillor, I am concerned about many of
the allocated sites for housing proposed in the Draft Allocations Plan.
While recognising the housing shortage the borough faces, which of
course is a national issue, I am concerned that many of the proposed
sites are currently used by a significant number of residents for a variety
of recreational & community uses. In identifying suitable locations for
future housing it is vital that recreational space is maintained within the
communities of Horwich & Blackrod in order to protect areas of green
open space for the promotion of opportunities for healthy living & the
cleaner, greener aspect, enhancing the visual amenity of the local
community.
Blackrod Community Centre & the surrounding recreational open space
are both very well used by the local community. Many regular activities
take place here, both inside the community centre & on the adjacent
fields; the site also serves in acting as a focal point for local community
life. The loss of this site would be a devastating loss to local residents &
the wider community as a whole; I would urge in the strongest possible
terms that the site of Blackrod Community Centre be designated a
protected site from future development & kept for use by the community
for recreational & leisure use.
Other sites in the Plan which raise concerns in the ward include Crown
Lane, Horwich, along with Shawbury Close & Manchester Road,
Blackrod and Gibb Farm. Again, these sites are either used by local
residents as recreational open space and/or development would have a
negative effect on the visual amenity of the area.
I would ask that full consideration is given to the detrimental effect
building on each of the sites would have on the local community before
their inclusion in the Allocations Plan.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace within the urban area
provided it allows for improvements of
remaining greenspace and helps meet
strategic housing objectives. This loss
should be mitigated through
improvements to other public space
nearby and new housing taking into
account the character of the existing
housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
324
Name
J Perkins
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I wish to place a formal objection against the draft Allocations Plan,
specifically in relation to the potential sites for new housing in the
Horwich and Blackrod area. I am a resident of Blackrod and am very
concerned that all but one of the sites identified within the area are ALL
greenfield and recreational areas.
The potential loss of such already limited recreational areas in this
proposal surely contravenes Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for
open space, sport and recreation.
I am very concerned about the analysis of Blackrod Community Centre in
the Sustainability Appraisal which states: "Uncertain whether community
centre is in use. If it is still open, developing this site will result in loss of a
community facility. Some of the site is on recreational open space.
Although the allocation only covers a portion of the recreational open
space and would not present a loss of all the recreational open space
there would be a reduction".
Blackrod
Community Centre is a well utilised site and is used by several
community groups, seven days a week throughout the year. It is a major
concern that Bolton Council are not aware of this, and that yet again a
vital resource to our township is under threat.
Also the recreational space around the centre is of utmost importance to
the young people in our community. If this and the community centre are
lost it would disadvantage our local children who we are trying to
encourage to be healthy, safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive
contribution and achieve economic well-being: the five outcomes that are
key to a child's well-being and later life.
The site is an integral part of our community, that enables local people to
support local children and all sections of the township.
I believe it is imperative that Bolton Council re-consider these plans, and
acknowledge the views of those whom have taken the time to respond in
this consultation.
Two Towns Area Forum: Housing sites in Blackrod: Town councillors
were interested as to who had submitted these sites.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace within the urban area
provided it allows for improvements of
remaining greenspace and helps meet
strategic housing objectives. This loss
should be mitigated through
improvements to other public space
nearby and new housing taking into
account the character of the existing
housing.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
325
The initial list of housing sites was
pulled together from a variety of
sources including discussions with
Bolton at Home and other council
departments.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
David Chadwick
James Street, Westhoughton (site 108sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
The Core Strategy approach of
concentrating development within the
existing built up area while
safeguarding protected open land, the
majority of which is around
Westhoughton will mean choices have
to be made about developing
greenfield sites. This is a grassed
area offering little amenity or
recreational use. The Core Strategy
allows up to 20% of new housing on
greenfield land. Traffic implications will
need to be fully considered.
Kevan Jones
James Street, Westhoughton (site 108sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
The Core Strategy approach of
concentrating development within the
existing built up area while
safeguarding protected open land, the
majority of which is around
Westhoughton will mean choices have
to be made about developing
greenfield sites. This is a grassed
area offering little amenity or
recreational use. The Core Strategy
allows up to 20% of new housing on
greenfield land. Traffic implications will
need to be fully considered.
Chris Peacock
James Street, Westhoughton (site 108sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
The Core Strategy approach of
concentrating development within the
existing built up area while
safeguarding protected open land, the
majority of which is around
Westhoughton will mean choices have
to be made about developing
greenfield sites. This is a grassed
area offering little amenity or
recreational use. The Core Strategy
allows up to 20% of new housing on
greenfield land. Traffic implications will
need to be fully considered.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
326
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
The Reservoir provides a valuable
recreational use and forms an
attractive feature in the local
townscape. This was recognised by
the 1995 UDP Inspector and was
confirmed by the 2005 UDP's
allocation of the Reservoir as protected
open space. There have been no
material changes in circumstances that
would warrant the reallocation of the
land for housing now.
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land at Dixon Green Reservoir
3.36 This site is 1.51 hectares in Peel’s ownership adjacent to a further
1.02
hectares of other ownership. Part of the adjoining land is a proposed
allocation. The existing reservoir is a significant maintenance liability with
associated security and safety issues. Peel would like to see the site
developed for housing, both to remove the liability and to ensure an
appropriate sustainable redevelopment project.
Peel Investments (North) Limited
17
3.37 The reservoir site could be combined with the adjoining land around
a
central open space area that could possibly include a smaller water body
for amenity and potentially fishing purposes. The site is considered to be
previously developed land, in essence redundant infrastructure.
Redevelopment would be both suitable and viable. Peel therefore
requests
the Allocation of the site for housing.
Land at Garnett Fold (23SC): Peel supports the proposed allocation of
this 3.9 hectare site within the Draft DPD. This site lies within the urban
area of Inner Bolton within the Core Strategy. Elements of the site can be
defined as previously developed land and it is one of very few sites that
lie within a sustainable location within the urban area that could make a
significant contribution to housing provision in the short term. The site is
immediately available for development and has no known major
constraints.
2.7 The Draft DPD proposes an allocation under Site Ref 23SC for the
development of 3.90 hectares with a potential yield of 117 dwellings. This
represents a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Peel is yet to
commission any masterplanning work on the site but has no objection to
the proposed density at this stage. We would however note that the
sustainability appraisal (appendix 2) identifies a potential capacity of 147
dwellings, which may be a minor typographical error. It is our intention to
undertake preliminary analytical work to support the draft
allocation and provide the Council, the Inspector and third parties with
key information about the overall developability of the site.
2.8 If the proposed housing sites in the DPD are to be phased, we
consider that the site should be brought forward in the first phase due to
its immediate achievability.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
327
Support noted.
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Heaton Grange (42SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
This land is currently used as grazing
land. For development to come
forward the conservation area location,
adjoining development and presence
of TPOs mean that development will
need to be of high quality and at an
appropriate density.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
328
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land at Hunger Hill (Hanson Concrete Batch Plant)
3.32 This site consists of a concrete batch works and its immediate
surroundings. The site comprises 3 ha of previously developed land
(PDL) that is currently in use as a concrete batch plant. The site has an
existing access to the west and is well screened to the east, north and
south.
3.33 The site forms the PDL part of a wider area of land owned by Peel,
to the east and north east of the plant, some of which was included in our
previous response to the Call for Sites. If the site was to fall vacant
during the Allocations Plan period, it would be appropriate and suitable
for housing. Such development could be well related to the existing
housing to Peel Investments (North) Limited 16 the north, and would be
well screened/landscaped. However, if the site were to remain within the
Green Belt, such a scheme would not be in accordance with Green Belt
policy. We therefore consider it is appropriate for a small local boundary
change to the Hunger Hill area to take place, focussed on the PDL area.
This would be justified by exceptional circumstances given the particular
characteristics of the site and the absence of harm to the Green Belt,
allied to a wider need to ensure flexibility of housing supply.
The release of this land from the
Green Belt would be contrary to the
Core Strategy and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The Core
Strategy does not identify the need to
develop any housing in the Green Belt,
either in this location or any other.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
329
Name
Paul Ashcroft
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I reside in one of the houses backing onto Leigh Common and was
extremely surprised and distressed to hear that a decision reached only
a couple of years ago refusing development of this land may now be
overturned and proposals for building houses on this land may yet be
given the go ahead. I have a number of issues to raise regarding this,
which are as follows:
*Where is the access to this land going to be?
*Any new house build on this land would be detrimental to Collingwood
Way, Peel Road, Grundy Street etc., due to the increase in traffic that
this would inevitably bring.
*The traffic situation in Westhoughton is unsustainable, as the area
cannot cope with the amount of traffic on the roads. This you can see for
yourself in the mornings and evenings. If there has been an accident at
any given point, Westhoughton comes to a standstill. There has been
times when the volume of traffic alone brings Westhoughton to a
standstill.
*There are already several areas that have had
new build housing, the main one that comes to mind being at Daisy Hill,
and these still remain "unsold" and are even struggling "To Let", even the
house next door to mine has been up for sale/to let for several months.
*If the go ahead to build on this land is given, there is obviously the
increase in traffic that this will cause, therefore increasing the amount of
Carbon Dioxide in the area.
*The amount of waste to landfill would increase.
With these points in mind and as a matter of record, I would therefore
very strongly object to any proposals to overturn the previous decision
not to develop this land.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
330
Name
Paul Birkett
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common (site 109SC): There is no need to include
greenfield land in the LDF whilst there exists a plentiful and undeveloped
supply of brownfield sites. This particular site has been the subject of at
least two planning applications, both of which were rejected by Bolton
Council and were unsuccessful, the latest one following an appeal and a
planning inquiry!! So for the Council now to include the land in the LDF is
self-contradictory to say the least, and utterly incomprehensible. Access
to the land is restricted. It is bounded on two sides by a public footpath
and a cemetery and on the other sides by existing housing. Vehicular
access would involve grossly unsatisfactory arrangements and
unacceptable traffic for current residents at Collingwood Way or Leigh
Common.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
331
Name
David Chadwick
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Allocation 109SC Collingwood Way Westhoughton. 1. In 2006
Application 75635/06 by Wainhomes to erect 35 dwellings on Leigh
Common. 2. The application was refused by the Council:- a. Would result
in the development of a Greenfield site, contrary to the sequential
approach to develop in the U.D.P. plan policy H3 RG5 DP. (brownfield greenfield- greenbelt) b. Access routes to the site were substandard in
highway terms. Would significantly increase traffic to the detriment of
highway safety. Would also result in congestion where on street parking
currently prevalent. Contrary to U.D.P. A5. 3. In 2007 Inquiry into
application's refusal by the Council upheld. 4. In 2010 L.D.F. Inquiry.
Matter 7 Are the proposals for Westhoughton justified? Proposal OA3
page 85:- a. Continue to promote Westhoughton town centre for mixed
use including housing. b. To continue sites for new housing in
Westhoughton town centre and other sites within the existing urban area.
c. Maintain current green belt boundaries. d. Ensure Protected Open
Land around Westhoughton remains undeveloped. At the Inquiry both
Bellway (Bowlands Hey) and Persimmon (Lee Hall) both challenged this
and Persimmon maintained Bolton couldn't meet its housing targets. 5.
Bolton's Core Strategy housing targets page 51:- a. Identify a range of
housing sites for additional provision of 694 dwellings annually between
2008 and 2026. b. At least 80% on previously developed land. c.
Transforming Estates will provide up to 20% of housing development on
greenfield land. d. On Previously Developed Land 18% should be
affordable and on greenfield land 35%. Only lower if can demonstrate
that development would not be financially viable. e. Development
concentrated in Bolton town centre, renewal areas and at Horwich Loco
Works. Also some development in outer areas where it is in character
with the surrounding area and where there is adequate infrastructure. f.
The Transforming Estates programme will provide new housing on sites
in Council owned housing areas. The programme will be concentrated in
regeneration areas and some of it will be on greenfield sites. g. Other
greenfield sites, not in the Transforming Estates programme are unlikely
to be developed 6. At the L.D.F. Inquiry I assume in Matter 2 Housing,
Bellway and Persimmon challenged this policy and claimed it would not
fulfil the target of 694 houses. However, in Matter 7 this was disputed by
Tim Hill. Bolton's Policy was considered sound as it was approved by the
Inspector January 2011 and adopted by the Council March 2011. Report
paragraphs 20 - 27 suggests 5 year supply of housing land. Paragraph
27 opposition to greenfield - prejudicial to urgent need for regeneration of
urban areas. 7. At Matter 7 a representative of Hulton Estates asked for
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
332
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
a definition of the urban area of Westhoughton. Hearing notes - Planners
to clarify what was meant by 'infill development.' Defined as development
upon any site within the urban area. Suggestion that it could read
'Westhoughton town centre and the urban area,' from Hulton Estates.
Simon Godley agreed to look into it. 8. Problems associated any new
development on Collingwood Way a. It is assumed that this is the same
site as the 2006 application, owing to the size of the plan provided with
its very small scale. Having successfully defended this site in 2007, why
has this been included in the allocations. b. The access problems have
not improved since this application. c. This allocation is not within the
urban area being bounded by greenfield or greenbelt land on two sides.
d. If all greenfield development are to be included in the Transforming
Estates programme why has this one been included in the allocations. e.
Planning decisions are meant to follow local plans. Westhoughton has
been massively overdeveloped for the last twenty+ years and at the
L.D.F. Inquiry it was agreed that Bolton had sufficient land to cope with
its requirements before the inclusion of this site. There is a need to
allocate a site for the siting of a Health Centre in case sufficient Health
Service funds become available during the period of the L.D.F.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
333
Council response
Name
Connolly
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land off Collingwood Way, Westhoughton:
*As residents adjoining this area we have not been notified of this
change in planning.
*This land has been through judicial appeal twice in the past 4 years,
both times Her Majesties Inspectorate declared that the land was
unsuitable for housing.
*Collingwood Way is a cul-de-sac and already has more housing than
the laws allow for these kinds of roads, extra housing would add to the
already congested area.
*It has twice been deemed that there is no means of access from Leigh
Common for emergency vehicles, extensive measurements have already
been taken regarding this access.
*Traffic on Church Street and surrounding areas is already highly
congested particularly during school times and rush hour.
*The play area mentioned in your report is only adequate for a very small
number of children. It is totally inadequate for larger numbers of children
and not suitable for older children.
*During the last planning application the land was not owned by
Wainhomes, if it was then residents were misled at the appeal, it was
supposed to be owned by Mrs Hibbert and Mr Mac Alpine.
*The infrastructure in the local area will not support this increase in
housing, the new health centre has been put on hold thus the demand on
medical services would be compromised.
*This land is green belt. There are plenty of brownfield sites in the area
that should be utilised first.
*Why have the council changed their tack on this land after being
opposed to it for the past 5-10 years? There are plenty of houses in this
area that are either for sale or empty, this shows that there is no
necessity for further homes.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
334
Name
Mary Connolly
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
We the undersigned strongly object to the draft Allocations Plans
proposal to allocate the land off Collingwood Way and Leigh Common for
housing, despite the council winning the argument not to build on the
land at a previous planning enquiry.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
335
Name
Christopher
Cunniff
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common (site 109SC): It was decided by Bolton Council
NOT to build on this land only a few years ago as there was no need.
Building on this land would cause unnecessary pressure on the
infrastructure and roads. There are already enough homes for sale in the
area without building more, that will in the current climate, remain empty
for years.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
336
Name
John Goldworthy
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I wish to place my objection to the proposed plan to incorporate the land
to the north of Leigh Common, Westhoughton, which has been the
subject of may planning applications over the years.
In each and every one, the planning has been overturned because of the
lack of suitable exit from the site for traffic. For many years this land was
farm land with cows, sheep, and horses regularly raised there. In autumn
the grass was reaped for feed and the fences surrounding the field all in
good order. Now it is a tip and used by dog walkers, teenage vandals for
drinking and what else? This could be cured by the owners completing
the fencing to ensure no unauthorised persons can obtain access to the
field (travellers may have a way in now that the fence has bee
demolished and a wide gap made in the southern side. Cleaned up it will
be a haven for birds once again - Redwings, fieldfares, swallow etc, as
well as pipistrelle bats who still occupy the site each evening.
Please note in the strongest terms that the surrounding houses do NOT
want any further encroachment on what was and still could be, a green
space to admire.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
337
Name
Kevan Jones
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Allocation 109SC Collingwood Way Westhoughton. 1. In 2006
Application 75635/06 by Wainhomes to erect 35 dwellings on Leigh
Common. 2. The application was refused by the Council:- a. Would result
in the development of a Greenfield site, contrary to the sequential
approach to develop in the U.D.P. plan policy H3 RG5 DP. (brownfield greenfield- greenbelt) b. Access routes to the site were substandard in
highway terms. Would significantly increase traffic to the detriment of
highway safety. Would also result in congestion where on street parking
currently prevalent. Contrary to U.D.P. A5. 3. In 2007 Inquiry into
application's refusal by the Council upheld. 4. In 2010 L.D.F. Inquiry.
Matter 7 Are the proposals for Westhoughton justified? Proposal OA3
page 85:- a. Continue to promote Westhoughton town centre for mixed
use including housing. b. To continue sites for new housing in
Westhoughton town centre and other sites within the existing urban area.
c. Maintain current green belt boundaries. d. Ensure Protected Open
Land around Westhoughton remains undeveloped. At the Inquiry both
Bellway (Bowlands Hey) and Persimmon (Lee Hall) both challenged this
and Persimmon maintained Bolton couldn't meet its housing targets. 5.
Bolton's Core Strategy housing targets page 51:- a. Identify a range of
housing sites for additional provision of 694 dwellings annually between
2008 and 2026. b. At least 80% on previously developed land. c.
Transforming Estates will provide up to 20% of housing development on
greenfield land. d. On Previously Developed Land 18% should be
affordable and on greenfield land 35%. Only lower if can demonstrate
that development would not be financially viable. e. Development
concentrated in Bolton town centre, renewal areas and at Horwich Loco
Works. Also some development in outer areas where it is in character
with the surrounding area and where there is adequate infrastructure. f.
The Transforming Estates programme will provide new housing on sites
in Council owned housing areas. The programme will be concentrated in
regeneration areas and some of it will be on greenfield sites. g. Other
greenfield sites, not in the Transforming Estates programme are unlikely
to be developed 6. At the L.D.F. Inquiry I assume in Matter 2 Housing,
Bellway and Persimmon challenged this policy and claimed it would not
fulfil the target of 694 houses. However, in Matter 7 this was disputed by
Tim Hill. Bolton's Policy was considered sound as it was approved by the
Inspector January 2011 and adopted by the Council March 2011. Report
paragraphs 20 - 27 suggests 5 year supply of housing land. Paragraph
27 opposition to greenfield - prejudicial to urgent need for regeneration of
urban areas. 7. At Matter 7 a representative of Hulton Estates asked for
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
338
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
a definition of the urban area of Westhoughton. Hearing notes - Planners
to clarify what was meant by 'infill development.' Defined as development
upon any site within the urban area. Suggestion that it could read
'Westhoughton town centre and the urban area,' from Hulton Estates.
Simon Godley agreed to look into it. 8. Problems associated any new
development on Collingwood Way a. It is assumed that this is the same
site as the 2006 application, owing to the size of the plan provided with
its very small scale. Having successfully defended this site in 2007, why
has this been included in the allocations. b. The access problems have
not improved since this application. c. This allocation is not within the
urban area being bounded by greenfield or greenbelt land on two sides.
d. If all greenfield development are to be included in the Transforming
Estates programme why has this one been included in the allocations. e.
Planning decisions are meant to follow local plans. Westhoughton has
been massively overdeveloped for the last twenty+ years and at the
L.D.F. Inquiry it was agreed that Bolton had sufficient land to cope with
its requirements before the inclusion of this site. There is a need to
allocate a site for the siting of a Health Centre in case sufficient Health
Service funds become available during the period of the L.D.F.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
339
Council response
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common (109SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
340
Name
Janet Martindale
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common, Westhoughton (site 109sc): The residents on
our estate would suffer a loss of open space that is currently used for
recreational purposes i.e. walking to enable us to get out of the "built up
areas". There are not many of these areas in Westhoughton and this is
the only one on this side of town. No play areas are provided for the
current children who reside on our estate (one small area exists but the
play equipment was removed many years ago) - extra housing means a
shortage of play area. The proposed site for building is known for holding
water on the surface as it is and the extra hard standing that would be
placed down on the new development would compact this problem. I
believe this area is in a high risk flood zone.
I also feel we don't have the infrastructure to support this development
i.e. doctors surgeries etc. as well as schools considering the number of
closures of primary schools in Westhoughton over the recent years.
Westhoughton only has one High School which is very much over
subscribed!!!
Also not to mention our roads are mot wide enough to take the increase
in through traffic which would increase considerably and hence make it
unsafe for children who play out and access for emergency services.
Residents on the two roads out of our estate (Grundy Street/Peel Street)
double park as they only have "on street parking".
We would also lose a considerable amount of wildlife within this area not
to mention foliage that grows frequently. Non common birds i.e. song
thrushes nest in this area that will disappear if the area is built up. Also
many ducks have been seen in the area and on the brook that runs at
the back of the proposed site.
Consideration also needs to be taken into account of the heavy wagons
that will be running through the estate if this building is given the go
ahead. We have previously experienced the trouble this causes when
houses were built on Kerans Drive. Roads are left in unfit states due to
mud and rubble along with road surface damage and damage to
vehicles.
I feel that if this gets the go ahead there would be
no benefit to the town of Westhoughton, only a drain on our services.
New residents to town now seem to be commuters who do not spend
locally and give nothing of benefit only increase our traffic congestion
(Church Street is horrendous to access and drive down in peak hours),
increase our need for more waste collection and health services
therefore increasing our charges for Council Tax.
Finally the impact on health has to be considered. One of my children
suffers from asthma and this was the reason we moved to this area as it
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
341
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
is in an open part of Westhoughton. Extra traffic will increase the
pollution.
PLEASE leave the open
spaces of Westhoughton for our future generations to enjoy as previous
generations have been able to before our town becomes a sprawling
mess of houses and tarmac.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
342
Council response
Name
Chris Peacock
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Allocation 109SC Collingwood Way Westhoughton. 1. In 2006
Application 75635/06 by Wainhomes to erect 35 dwellings on Leigh
Common. 2. The application was refused by the Council:- a. Would result
in the development of a Greenfield site, contrary to the sequential
approach to develop in the U.D.P. plan policy H3 RG5 DP. (brownfield greenfield- greenbelt) b. Access routes to the site were substandard in
highway terms. Would significantly increase traffic to the detriment of
highway safety. Would also result in congestion where on street parking
currently prevalent. Contrary to U.D.P. A5. 3. In 2007 Inquiry into
application's refusal by the Council upheld. 4. In 2010 L.D.F. Inquiry.
Matter 7 Are the proposals for Westhoughton justified? Proposal OA3
page 85:- a. Continue to promote Westhoughton town centre for mixed
use including housing. b. To continue sites for new housing in
Westhoughton town centre and other sites within the existing urban area.
c. Maintain current green belt boundaries. d. Ensure Protected Open
Land around Westhoughton remains undeveloped. At the Inquiry both
Bellway (Bowlands Hey) and Persimmon (Lee Hall) both challenged this
and Persimmon maintained Bolton couldn't meet its housing targets. 5.
Bolton's Core Strategy housing targets page 51:- a. Identify a range of
housing sites for additional provision of 694 dwellings annually between
2008 and 2026. b. At least 80% on previously developed land. c.
Transforming Estates will provide up to 20% of housing development on
greenfield land. d. On Previously Developed Land 18% should be
affordable and on greenfield land 35%. Only lower if can demonstrate
that development would not be financially viable. e. Development
concentrated in Bolton town centre, renewal areas and at Horwich Loco
Works. Also some development in outer areas where it is in character
with the surrounding area and where there is adequate infrastructure. f.
The Transforming Estates programme will provide new housing on sites
in Council owned housing areas. The programme will be concentrated in
regeneration areas and some of it will be on greenfield sites. g. Other
greenfield sites, not in the Transforming Estates programme are unlikely
to be developed 6. At the L.D.F. Inquiry I assume in Matter 2 Housing,
Bellway and Persimmon challenged this policy and claimed it would not
fulfil the target of 694 houses. However, in Matter 7 this was disputed by
Tim Hill. Bolton's Policy was considered sound as it was approved by the
Inspector January 2011 and adopted by the Council March 2011. Report
paragraphs 20 - 27 suggests 5 year supply of housing land. Paragraph
27 opposition to greenfield - prejudicial to urgent need for regeneration of
urban areas. 7. At Matter 7 a representative of Hulton Estates asked for
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
343
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
a definition of the urban area of Westhoughton. Hearing notes - Planners
to clarify what was meant by 'infill development.' Defined as development
upon any site within the urban area. Suggestion that it could read
'Westhoughton town centre and the urban area,' from Hulton Estates.
Simon Godley agreed to look into it. 8. Problems associated any new
development on Collingwood Way a. It is assumed that this is the same
site as the 2006 application, owing to the size of the plan provided with
its very small scale. Having successfully defended this site in 2007, why
has this been included in the allocations. b. The access problems have
not improved since this application. c. This allocation is not within the
urban area being bounded by greenfield or greenbelt land on two sides.
d. If all greenfield development are to be included in the Transforming
Estates programme why has this one been included in the allocations. e.
Planning decisions are meant to follow local plans. Westhoughton has
been massively overdeveloped for the last twenty+ years and at the
L.D.F. Inquiry it was agreed that Bolton had sufficient land to cope with
its requirements before the inclusion of this site. There is a need to
allocate a site for the siting of a Health Centre in case sufficient Health
Service funds become available during the period of the L.D.F.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
344
Council response
Name
Richardson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
We object very strongly against planning application 1020 Land at Leigh
Common being built on. We live at 61 Collingwood Way. The only access
routes to this land are along Grundy St and Peel St. Both streets are
lined with terraced houses with cars parked in the road on both sides.
Traffic flow along these two streets is already obstructed with the parked
cars. Emergency vehicles would be even more affected if there was
additional traffic. The increased traffic would have to feed onto Church
Street which is already busy and queuing at times. Collingwood Way was
designed only for the houses it already has. Any increased traffic would
create more noise and disturbance.
When we moved to the house we could see that there was open land at
the rear of the property which is an attraction to living here. Any new
houses built on the land would not only obstruct the open view of all
existing residents, but would also create a very long cul-de-sac of over
400 mtrs long as there is no other access point to this field.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
345
Name
Maureen Smith
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I am objecting to the draft Allocations Plans proposal to allocate land off
Collingwood Way and Leigh Common for housing, despite the council
winning the argument not to build on the land at a previous enquiry. The
reasons it was refused have not changed or improved, some situations
have deteriorated.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
346
Name
Tor Stringfellow
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common, Westhoughton (site 109sc): Planning permission
has previously been sought on this land for housing and rejected based
on lack of access and already busy main roadways in the area. Nothing
has changed since this rejection and so I fail to see how this land can
now be designated as potential housing land. Additionally, I feel that this
proposal has been placed stealthily by the council with a complete lack of
communication to residents (I shouldn't have to find out that land
adjacent to my home is to be designated as housing land from a political
flyer) and so furthermore object to this.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
347
Name
John West
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Leigh Common, Westhoughton (site 109sc):I live at Collingwood
Way in Westhoughton. I have lived at this address for near on 12 years.
Following on from the Liberal Democrats Westhoughton Focus
newsletter, I feel that I have to write to you objecting to the plans for a
house build on the field adjacent to my property.
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
I have 3 children, my eldest is nearly 9 and is used to playing outside in
the street with his friends and especially playing in the turn around that
faces the filed at the bottom of Collingwood Way. The street is populated
by families with young children who have been brought up on the estate
knowing that traffic is at a minimum and can play safe in the street. If this
planning permission (which had been turned down?!?) is reversed and
the turn around is opened for traffic it would only be a matter of time
before incidents arise due to the ‘mind set’ of the children who have
always known the quiet roads around their dwellings and the new
increased flow of traffic. That area would be a ‘blind spot’ and would be a
high risk area for potential accidents.
I also purchased my property because of the ‘quiet’ nature of the street
NOT to be then told extra traffic will be coming past my front door. I also
fear that traffic that is already a ‘joke’ in the Westhoughton area,
motorists would use any ‘shortcuts’ to jump congestion and divert down
our road at speed to re-join further down Church Street. There is also the
problem of the width of the road in Collingwood Way and to get double
traffic flowing would not work and lead to potential problems and
tailbacks in a residential area.
I feel let down by Bolton Council with this proposal and would like to
object to any plans to build on a ‘green area’, surely there is enough
pollution with increased traffic through extra house building within
Westhoughton that has taken place already that it does not warrant any
more, the place is congested enough with increased houses up for sale
all over Westhoughton, why the need for this?
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
348
Name
Christine Morris
Bolton Council
Organisation
Westhoughton Town
Council
Comment Summary
Council response
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: Land at Leigh
Common (109SC): The access through Collingwood Way is bad - will
there be any further extension to this area?
This site is a remnant piece of
agricultural land within the urban
areas. While it provides a pleasant
outlook for the immediate properties
there is no public access to the site nor
does it have a significant role as open
space. The Core Strategy does
support up to 20% of housing
development on greenfield land while
setting as a priority development of
housing on brownfield land. This land
appears to be largely unused and of
limited amenity value. Land to the
west is protected open land and this
will be unaffected by development of
this site. Local concerns over access
and highways matters will be
addressed should an application come
forward for housing. It is worth noting
that while the most recent appeal was
dismissed the Inspector considered a
safe scheme was achievable in
highway terms.
The Core Strategy approach of
concentrating development within the
existing built up area while
safeguarding protected open land, the
majority of which is around
Westhoughton will mean choices have
to be made about developing
greenfield sites. The Core Strategy
allows up to 20% of new housing on
greenfield land. Traffic implications will
need to be fully considered and safe
access secured to sites.
Westhoughton Town Council objects to the following areas of land being
allocated as housing sites:
*Land at
Roscoe's Farm, off Bolton Road, Westhoughton
*Land near Collingwood Way, Leigh Common, Westhoughton
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
349
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Land at Moss Lea Site A & C: I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
This site is vacant underused land
between existing housing and
Thornleigh College. Development
would bring land back into productive
use.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
350
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land at Roscoe's Farm (111sc): Peel supports the proposed allocation of
this 3.8 hectare site within the
Draft DPD. The site sits in the centre of the town of Westhoughton in a
strategically important and highly sustainable location. The site is
immediately available and deliverable for development and represents
an opportunity to bring forward a sustainable new housing
development to meet identified requirements. The site was previously
considered suitable for housing development by the Planning Inspector
looking into the Bolton Unitary Development Plan, although it
subsequently remained unallocated.
2.2 The site has no known fundamental constraints to development. It is
largely unconstrained subject to appropriate treatment of surrounding
features and context. Access to the site is achievable through the
currently cleared site to the immediate South West of the main site
area. This area already benefits a planning permission which has been
commenced, for housing development, and we would suggest that the
Roscoe's Farm allocation should be extended to include this area.
2.3 The Draft DPD proposes an allocation under Site Ref 111SC for the
development of 3.78 hectares with a potential yield of 170 dwellings.
This represents a density of 45 dwellings per hectare. Peel has
undertaken initial masterplanning work on the site and has no objection
to the proposed density at this stage. It would be our intention to
undertake further analytical work to support the draft allocation and
provide the Council, the Inspector and third parties with key
information about the overall developability of the site.
Peel Investments (North) Limited
4
2.4 If the proposed housing sites in the DPD are to be phased, we
consider
that the site should be brought forward in the first phase due to its
immediate achievability.
Support noted.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
351
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
The release of this land from the
Green Belt would be contrary to the
Core Strategy and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The Core
Strategy does not identify the need to
develop any housing in the Green Belt,
either in this location or any other.
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Land at Snydale Gate Farm West
Peel Investments (North) Limited
15
3.29 We previously sought the release of the wider Snydale Gate Farm
site
from the Green Belt for distribution/manufacturing purposes, but are now
proposing instead that the land South of East of Snydale Way be
safeguarded for these purposes (see above). In recognising the need to
retain openness and address the purposes of the Green Belt, we now
propose a much smaller release of land at Syndale Gate Farm West.
This
would be confined to the 1.4 ha area that is already surrounded on two
sides by ribbon development on Bolton Road and Manchester Road, as
shown on the enclosed plan at Appendix 1.
3.30 This land is suitable and achievable for housing development. The
land
is however within the Green Belt. A small scale localised Green Belt
boundary review would therefore be necessary. We consider this could
be
justified as an exceptional circumstance by way of rounding off the Green
Belt and ensuring appropriate flexibility in the housing supply.
3.31 The site could be accessed off Bolton Road, with a landscaped
boundary
to the east, forming a new Green Belt boundary to the remainder of
Syndale Gate Farm. We therefore request a localised Green Belt review
and
allocation of the site for housing.
Land at Watersmeeting/Eagley Brook (Site 8SC): This site is part of the
wildlife corridor along Eagley Brook/River Tonge and as such should be
protected under Core Strategy policy CG2.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
352
This site has planning permission and
is under-development. The wildlife
corridors in the vicinity are largely tied
to the river corridors and will have
been taken into account at the
planning application stage.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land off St. Helens Road, Over Hulton
3.34 This 0.59 hectare site is partially occupied by the Over Hulton
Conservative Club and partially is occupied by a vacant Scout Hut. It is
suitable and potentially available during the Plan period for housing
development.
3.35 The site is within the Green Belt but is comprised entirely of
previously
developed land. A minor Green Belt boundary review is necessary and
appropriate at the site. This would form a more logical and permanent
boundary along the western edge of the site, as shown in the plan at
Appendix 1.
The release of this land from the
Green Belt would be contrary to the
Core Strategy and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The Core
Strategy does not identify the need to
develop any housing in the Green Belt,
either in this location or any other.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
353
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land to the South East of M61 Junction 4
3.12 This site measures 9.1 hectares and is located immediately to the
south
of the M61 Junction 4. The site provides an excellent opportunity for a
gateway leisure development. The site is accessible and available for
development. There are no known major technical obstacles to bringing
the
site forward.
3.13 The UK Coal Cutacre site is situated to the south and is the focus of
the
proposed allocation in the Proposals Map for employment development.
Peel supports the proposed allocation of the identified land.
3.14 Paragraph 5.27 of the Core Strategy relating to Cutacre states that
“the
broad location for this strategic site will be in the vicinity of Cutacre tip to
the south of junction 4.” The site is within this ‘broad location’ and is also
within the M61 Corridor which is the main focus for manufacturing and
distribution uses in the Borough. It should therefore be considered in an
integrated manner with what will be a major focus of development for the
sub-region to offer ancillary uses.
3.15 The site could be of significant benefit to the M61 Corridor by
providing
supporting investment to complement the main focus on manufacturing
and distribution. The development of this site can be achieved in the
short
term, to enhance the investment profile of the Borough, including the
Country Park proposed nearby.
3.16 The site is currently within the Green Belt. The principle of Green
Belt
release in this broad location is established through the Core Strategy, to
Peel Investments (North) Limited
12
support what is the largest employment site in the Core Strategy. The
Core
Strategy provides flexibility by identifying this as a broad location rather
than defining boundaries. It is for the Council to determine through the
Allocations Plan the detailed extent of the Green Belt release for the
strategic site.
3.17 The Core Strategy states (para 5.27) that the extent of Green Belt
release will be informed by up to date evidence on the state of the local
The removal of this site from the Green
Belt would be contrary to the Core
Strategy and to the National Planning
Policy Framework. The Cutacre site to
the south of the A6 provides sufficient
manufacturing and distribution
development land to meet the Core
Strategy requirement as set out in
paragraph 5.27. The Core Strategy
does not identify any requirement for
leisure development in this location,
nor does it require the release of any
Green Belt land for leisure uses.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
354
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
economy. The Bolton Local Economic Assessment of November 2010
highlights the following:
· Vulnerability to reducing public sector employment, which suggests a
need to maximise opportunities for alternative sources of employment
focused around key investment opportunities;
· Ongoing reductions in manufacturing employment, the largest
employment sector in Bolton. Arising from this is a need to ensure that
the manufacturing sector is supported by complementary investment
that will help it remain and grow in Bolton.
3.18 The exceptional circumstances for a Green Belt review are already
established. The above circumstances and the availability of a suitable
and
achievable adjoining site, to complement wider investment, suggest a
need
to ensure that boundaries are not drawn too tightly. We consider that
there is a need for flexibility to ensure the delivery of major investment
and
to ensure that local challenges can be addressed.
3.19 We do not consider there would be any significant additional harm
to
the purposes or openness of the Green Belt and a long term permanent
defensible boundary can be drawn around the site including the M61 to
the
north.
3.20 We therefore consider that this land should be added to the draft
allocation. We would be pleased to undertake further analytical work to
Peel Investments (North) Limited
13
provide the Council with information on site constraints and opportunities,
to support an inclusion of the site within the allocation.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
355
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Land to the South East of Snydale Way
3.21 This 15.4 hectare site lies adjacent to Junction 5 of the M61 and
represents an excellent opportunity for development requiring access to
the Motorway network, whilst also having excellent links to the urban
area.
There are currently a number of industrial and waste recycling uses on
part
of the site, whilst the remainder is undeveloped.
3.22 We consider that the site should be removed from the Green Belt
and
safeguarded for future development. This would be as a reserve site for
manufacturing and distribution uses. We consider this a more
appropriate
form of development for the site than leisure use, as proposed in our
previous response to the Call for Sites.
3.23 The proximity of the site to the roundabout at Chequerbent off the
motorway, would require some form of investment to ensure that existing
traffic problems are not exacerbated. Indeed, there may be an
opportunity
to improve traffic flows as part of any development. Development could
bring significant improvements to the Chequerbent roundabout, thus
increasing access to the site and the wider area.
3.24 The Core Strategy states that the Council and its partners will
develop
employment sites and sites in Bolton town centre, Horwich Loco Works
and
other sites along the M61 corridor to ensure that they will provide
employment opportunities for people living within and outside the
Borough.
3.25 The site represents a strategically advantageous position on the
M61
corridor for either large scale distribution units or as an industrial park for
wider B Class Uses. Whilst appreciating the Councils desires for the
Peel Investments (North) Limited
14
majority of new business and industrial development to be located at
Cutacre and Horwich Loco Works, the Council recognises the potential
risks
of having only two areas for development in the longer term, and has
therefore proposed a Contingency chapter of the Core Strategy.
The removal of this land from the
Green Belt would be contrary to the
Core Strategy and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The Core
Strategy does not identify the need for
employment related development in
the Green Belt at this location.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
356
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
3.26 This recognises that delays to the delivery of these sites, particular
in
light of a fragile economy and uncertain market conditions, could
significantly affect the Council’s visions for the Borough, set out in the
Core
Strategy. It therefore proposes that should these sites not be
commenced
by 2014, the Council will work with landowners and developers of other
employment land sites in line with the spatial strategy to bring them
forward for development.
3.27 There is a limited supply of high quality available sites in the M61
Corridor. The site at Syndale Way should therefore be considered as a
reserve site safeguarded for future industrial/waterhousing development,
especially in the event that issues arise regarding the delivery of Cutacre
or
Horwich Loco Works.
3.28 The Council recognises in paragraph 4.10 of the Core Strategy that
the
scale of development proposed will necessitate a change to the Green
Belt
boundary along the M61 corridor, and any changes to the Green Belt will
be set out in the Allocations DPD. The exceptional circumstances to
review
the Green Belt for these purposes exist. A long term defensible
replacement Green Belt boundary could be drawn around the area in a
similar way to that proposed at Cutacre. Peel owns additional land Green
Belt west and east of this site, which is not represented in this report, that
could be used for environmental mitigation should this be necessary. We
therefore request the removal of the site from the Green Belt and its
designation as safeguarded land.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
357
Council response
Name
Judith Nelson
Amanda Butler
Bolton Council
Organisation
English Heritage
Comment Summary
Council response
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum: The Lever Gardens Site is a
proposed housing allocation. Have people in the sheltered housing been
consulted? The allocation would be at their expense. Why has this site
been chosen?
It is recognised that this is currently
sheltered accommodation sitting within
basic landscaped gardens. There is
potential for longer term
redevelopment of the site for housing
should its current use cease. In these
circumstances detailed discussions
would need to be held between Bolton
at Home and existing residents.
The site currently appears abandoned
and untidy. Development would
improve the appearance of the site and
has the potential to enhance the
surrounding area. Development must
respect the siting of an adjacent listed
building the Gatehouse to Lostock
Hall. Buildings on site which offer
character may be worth retaining.
The site currently appears abandoned
and untidy. Development would
improve the appearance of the site and
has the potential to enhance the
surrounding area. Development must
respect the siting of an adjacent listed
building the Gatehouse to Lostock
Hall. Buildings on site which offer
character may be worth retaining.
This site is adjacent to the grade II* listed former gatehouse to Lostock
Hall. It would be helpful to understand how development on this site
would affect the heritage asset and its setting.
This is a letter of objection against Lostock Hall Farm (site sc113) being
allocated for housing. The farm building itself is very unique in character
and as far I know we have nothing like it anywhere in Bolton. The
building comprises of a castellated frontage with an arched doorway
which cannot be viewed from the roadside. The building also offers
substantial heritage value and should be treated accordingly, we have
lost too much heritage of late in the name of so called progress can we at
least save this unique farm house.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
358
Name
Organisation
Barry Jubb
Margaret Collier
Bolton Council
Lostock Residents Group
Comment Summary
Council response
Lostock Hall Farm (site 113sc): I object to this development, but not in its
entirety, because the now derelict buildings are home to several
endangered species, Bats, Barn Owls and others.
So because of this a great deal of sensitivity will have to be used. I would
therefore suggest that only the smaller farm buildings are demolished,
with the large barn adjacent to the lodge being left intact and refurbished
in a very sensitive manner for the use of the Lancashire Wildlife trust and
the bio-diversity of the site. Which is right at the beginning of the Green
Route into Bolton and near an SSI area.
The site currently appears abandoned
and untidy. Development would
improve the appearance of the site and
has the potential to enhance the
surrounding area. Development must
respect the siting of an adjacent listed
building the Gatehouse to Lostock
Hall. Buildings on site which offer
character may be worth retaining. The
impact on endangered species and
potential provision within the design for
them within any new or converted
buildings would be considered in
determining any planning application
under Core Strategy policy CG1 and
other legislation.
In Lostock the sole area marked for housing development in the
Allocation Plan is the Low Wood site. Approval for one property on this
exceptional site, enclosed by several Tree Preservation Orders already
exists. This would replace an earlier single property, now demolished.
We support the proposal for a single dwelling. We are satisfied that the
Council undertook appropriate enforcement action when trees were
illegally felled here. The progress of the replacement saplings is being
monitored by the Council’s Trees and Woodlands Officers.
Support noted. The development has
been completed and the allocation
therefore deleted.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
359
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Teresa Hughes
GMEU
Low Wood (47sc), The Laurels Markland Hill (44SC), Roscoe's Farm
(111SC) and Garthmere Road (48SC) all either encompass parts of SBIs
or directly abut the boundary of an SBI. Although GMEU do not object to
these allocations per se, it is strongly recommended that adjustments to
the allocation boundaries are sought in order to remove areas of SBI
value from the allocations.
In addition, only Roscoe's Farm and Garthmere appear in the relevant
Sustainability Appraisals and it is recommended that the other sites are
also subject to an appraisal and that the value of the biodiversity
resource is recognised.
Low Wood and The Laurels have
already been granted planning
permission, and the site at Low Wood
is now complete and allocation 47SC
deleted. A Sustainability Appraisal is
therefore unnecessary for these sites.
Adjustments to the boundaries of the
other two sites are unnecessary
because they do not include any part
of the SBIs and any effects of
development can be mitigated as part
of any planning application.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Stephen and
Denise Preston
Bolton Council
Areas of Blackrod are covered by covenants. Regarding the Manchester
Road area I have the papers, conveyance papers and memorandum
dating from 1927 and 1959. The playing field was given to the children of
Blackrod and is still used to this day by the children and adults of
Blackrod. Therefore we object.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
360
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Tony Walsh
I would like to submit my opposition to the planned housing
developments for Blackrod, 123SC Community centre,124SC Shawbury
close,
124SC Manchester rd., The easiest way to see my objection is to view
Blackrod on a map please note these are Three green areas used for
recreation were family can run around and play with their children ,the
simple things the government promotes, you yourself promote yourself
as the” Bolton family”
and that's what these areas represent Quality time we spend in the fresh
air with our kids if you take these areas of us what have we left, just the
park at the bottom of the village the poorest looking park in Bolton ,one of
the sites even has “community “ in the title and that's what this is about,
not taking land but taking away our community and I think we will be all
together fighting this every step of the way, as community is important to
us all, that's one of the reasons we have one of the best primary schools
in the area if not the country, because we care about our kids future, and
these plans affect it greatly.
Mrs Ann
This is recreational open space, used by the local children. if this was
used for housing local children would have no safe area to play in
Billington
Manchester Road (125SC): These fields were given to the people of
Blackrod to enjoy. My children have spent many hours playing there and
it should be kept for future generations. There are other places that could
be modernised (older terraces) and used for council property. It must be
cheaper than building new houses.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
361
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Alan Bury
Manchester Road, Blackrod (site 125sc): The recreational land on
Manchester Road has long been available for any of the local children to
play on. There is an ongoing issue in Blackrod with children playing on
the streets due to the limited facilities of the town. This is both a
nuisance to others and a danger to the children. The idea to build on
one of the few remaining spaces in the town available for children to play
on is unbelievable.
Diane Calvert
Manchester Road (125SC): I object to this proposed allocation
Mavis Catterall
Manchester Road (125SC): 1. This site backs onto my property and
would restrict the light. 2. The traffic is already oversubscribed in the area
and this would make thing worse.
John Ivan
Catterall
Manchester Road (125SC): This site backs onto my property and would
cut out sunlight and my home would be overlooked. The field is used by
children for playing games etc.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
362
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Ronald Chinn
Manchester Road (125SC): More green belt taken over. More families
will need more schools. Roads will have more traffic jams. Blackrod used
to be a nice village now its becoming like a small city, more traffic than
ever. Cant keep roads In good repair now. God help is when we get
more traffic.
Ronald Crispin
Further development on Manchester Road, Blackrod, will simply add to
the horrendous traffic and parking problems we have to endure.
Mark Cunliffe
The land at the back of Manchester Road is a popular play area for
children and is one of the few green spaces that children can play on,
and has been used as recreational land for many years.
Sharon Cunliffe
The land at the back of Manchester Road is a popular play area for
children and is one of the few green spaces that children can play on,
and has been used as recreational land for many years.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
363
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Cunliffe
Manchester Road (125SC): We the residents of 347 Manchester Road
Blackrod object to any building on the land at the back (125SC) The
children from this area use the field every day in summer for football etc.
It is the only place for them. It was called the park years ago. Had
swings, see-saw etc, but these were removed.
Derbyshire
Re: 125SC - land off Manchester Road, Blackrod
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
I wish to object against the proposals to build houses on the above site.
The area of land which lies between Manchester Road and Hillside
Avenue, Blackrod was a children's play area until a few years ago and
currently lies within the Greenfield area of Blackrod. The access to this
land is a single track, meaning the gardens to the properties on either
side of this track would be lost in order to provide a suitable entrance if
housing development were to be approved.
It has been reported recently that the Recycling Plant at Nightingale
Farm, Blackhorse Street, Blackrod is to close - if houses are to be built in
Blackrod, why has this Brownfield site not been considered, rather than
the above Greenfield site?
Jean Gibbs
Bolton Council
Also, the schools in Blackrod are over-subscribed, the health
centre/surgery is full to capacity, the parking spaces within the village are
insufficient and the parking restrictions are causing unnecessary harm to
the local shop owners. More consideration must be given to these issues
rather than the need to build houses on greenfield sites.
Manchester Road, Blackrod (site 125sc): this is the only safe place for
the children of this area to play and it would cause traffic chaos.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
364
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Suzanne Hartop
Manchester Road (125SC): This is a long established green space
offering a secure environment for all ages of children. Access to the site
is very narrow. Blackrod already has sufficient housing and we need to
maintain our open spaces.
Andrew Hartop
Manchester Road (125SC): The area should stay as and open green
space as it benefits both children and adults.
Jean Hibbert
Manchester Road (125SC): This pocket of land was given to the people
of Blackrod by a benefactor many years ago and was then the King
George VI playing fields. Its has served local children well over the years.
If this were to be built on then where would the access be? the young
people of the estate are desperate for outside space.
Mary Johnson
Manchester Road (125SC): I object to this proposed allocation
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
365
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Barry Jubb
Manchester Road, Blackrod (125SC): I object to the loss of these three
areas for the same reasons that I have objected to the loss of other
Greenspace areas, whether they be for formal or informal recreational
use.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Moores
I would also like to object to the proposal to use the land listed 125SC
(Manchester Road). This field is used regularly by local primary school
children and dog-walkers. Losing this area would reduce the amount of
safe play areas for children who live in the centre of the village to use.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
366
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Joan O'Toole
Manchester Road (125SC): More and more houses will spoil the beauty
of Blackrod, which has always kept its respect and some independence.
Brenda Ramsey
Manchester Road (125SC): We have enough houses in Blackrod.
Manchester Road has too much traffic as it is. Children play on this land.
Sandra Ridgway
Objects to the proposed housing development at Manchester Road,
Blackrod (125SC) for the following reasons:
*Reduced children's play area would result in more children playing in
unsafe areas and on the street.
*Increased volume in traffic will increase the number of accidents,
especially with the reduction in children's play areas.
*Primary
and secondary schools are already over-subscribed.
*Increased strain on the medical centre.
*The current train service is poor.
*Inadequate local shops already have restricted parking facilities.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
367
Name
Eric & Shirley
Rowlandson
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I should like to object to the proposal to build houses on the playing fields
off Manchester Road in Blackrod (ref 125SC), on the following grounds:
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Such a development would adversely affect the health and well-being of
the local community, in that it is one of very few spaces in Blackrod
where children can play safely.
It would have a detrimental impact on the quality of life of people in this
part of the village if one of the few remaining open spaces were
removed.
It would destroy part of the natural environment and lead to people
having to travel over half a mile (probably by car) to the nearest open
space.
It would remove a green space and detract from the rural feel of the
village.
Joanne Sedwell
Ivy Speak
Bolton Council
Also, I believe that the land was purchased by Blackrod Council in 1957
with the proviso that it should be used for recreational purposes solely.
Manchester Road (125SC): 1. Increased traffic. 2. Negative impact on
biodiversity. 3. Increased demand for already overstretched services. 4.
Reduced safe areas for children to play.
Manchester Road (site 125sc): Children need somewhere to play safely.
Apart from footpaths this is the only safe place in the Manchester Road
and Green Barn area where children can play safely and where they can
be seen.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
368
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Dorothy Speak
Manchester Road, Blackrod (125sc): The government strategy is to stop
children being couch potatoes. Yet the local government want to take the
local children's playing areas away. Where else would they go to play?
Stoddard
Manchester Road (125SC): I object for the following reasons:
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
1. The playing fields allow children to play in a safe environment away
from the extremely busy main road. If this proposal is allowed to go
ahead the young people of Blackrod will soon have no where to play or
socialise.
2. More houses will no doubt mean more children trying to get into the
already over-subscribed Blackrod Primary School, meaning increased
competition for places for children already residing in the area.
Joyce Taylor
Manchester Road (125SC): I object to spare land that children can play
on going for building on. The road is busy enough without more cars
coming out on to it.
Nicola Jane
Woods
Manchester Road (125SC): Doing away with this playing field will mean
more young people hanging around on the street.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
369
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kathleen Woods
Manchester Road (125SC): Previous Council's must have thought of this
space as a vital part in the planning when this area was first developed.
What has changed? A great deal of emphasis is now placed on the rights
of children. Now more than ever children and young people need
somewhere safe to play and relax. If they did not have this area where
would they go?
Paul Sapey
I object to the following proposed housing sites: Manchester Road
(125SC), Shawbury Close (124SC), Blackrod Community Centre
(123SC).
I am objecting to these plans as extra houses on these plots will create
problems for the Blackrod community as outlined below:
*The extra population will create more traffic and wear and tear on the
roads in the area, that are already in a poor state of repair, especially
Greenbarn Way.
*Greenbarn Way is already full of cars parked along the road. More traffic
and parking will make the area dangerous for children crossing the road.
*There is already competition for places within the local primary schools.
Increasing the area population will only lead to having to school our
children further away.
*The areas mentioned above are places our children can use to play on
safely and close to home.
*There will be an increased demand on the doctors surgery, making it
more difficult to get an appointment.
*The local dentist is full and we already have to travel to Bolton to an
available NHS dentist.
*There would be nowhere else to exercise dogs on a field whilst playing
with our children.
*The Blackrod Community Centre is used by local children for football
teams, Karate, and a playschool. There will be nowhere local for our
children to use if the community centre goes.
What's also frustrating is you reported in the news that Blackrod
Community Centre was run down. It needs in maintaining, not neglecting.
A small community like Blackrod does not need its amenities taking
away, they need preserving so they can be enjoyed by its existing
residents. They do not need replacing with more houses whose residents
who will not have access to any of these amenities.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Development of Blackrod Community
Centre (123sc) has the potential to
improve the appearance of the site;
however it would result in the loss of a
well-used community centre and
football pitch. Any development would
need to mitigate this through the
replacement of these facilities nearby.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space. Core Strategy policy CG1
allows development on informal
greenspace like Manchester Road
(125sc) within the urban area provided
it allows for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
370
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Milnthorpe Road, Breightmet (61SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
such as this within the urban area
provided it allows for improvements of
remaining greenspace and helps meet
strategic housing objectives. The
boundary has been extended to
ensure a deliverable site while
ensuring that the existing hedgerows
and woodland is retained.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
371
Name
Rachel Brindle
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I understand that the recreation field at Mount Street has been earmarked for house building in the draft Allocations Plan. Under the
Planning Act 2008, recreational grounds in public ownership are
protected by law from development, and if built on the Council should
replace any recreational ground with the same or bigger in the same
area. Brazley, Claypool and New Chapel have high housing density with
busy roads due to the massive development of Middlebrook over the last
8-10 years and the proximity to Junction 6 of the M61. Any recreational
pockets of land are highly valued by the local community and very well
used.
I object to the building
of houses on Land 119SC (Mount Street) because:
1. My children use this recreation field to play football and my oldest son
has played football on the pitch with teams in the Bolton and Bury
football league.
2. The football pitch is flat, well drained and close to Bolton Community
College amenities such as toilets, refreshments and a car park. 3. I use
the recreation field on a daily basis to walk from Brazley to Victoria Road
and I do not want to lose my right of access across this area. My boys
often walk this way to Horwich town centre because it is safe and away
from dirty, noisy traffic on Chorley New Road. It is good for them to walk
and get fresh air, they can play football away from people's houses, they
enjoy spotting the wildlife including deer at the back of the site and can
ride their bikes away from traffic.
4. There is no public right of way across the adjacent private land of the
Horwich Golf Course making this public recreation space very valuable
for local residents and their children between Brazley and Victoria Road.
I would suggest that Land 119SC would be a valuable asset if the
popular St Mary's Primary School were to expand in the future, allowing
for more classroom space, a grass recreation field which they do not
have at present within their school boundary, while maintaining
concessionary public access between Brazley and Victoria Road. There
is also scope for amenity tree planting around the periphery of the
recreation field as this would enhance the landscape quality and cut out
traffic noise and pollution/dust from Chorley New Road.
I would
like to highlight the fact that there are strong community residents
associations in the area looking after the needs of their residents and
giving them a voice. These are Brazley Residents Association, New
Chapel Lane Residents Association and Claypool Residents Association.
There is enormous community spirit and a willingness to get together and
make the best of our housing estates in Horwich where we look after
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north. The inclusion
of proposed additional housing site
taking in the buildings and grounds of
Horwich College to allow redevelopment should educational use
cease combined with the Mount Street
allocation 119SC may provide scope to
investigate possibilities for school
expansion.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
372
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
each other and put on events for the community to enjoy.
In addition to this the National Planning Policy Framework urges
planners in their Local Plans to do the following (with specific reference
to numbered policies):
52: The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through
planning for large scale development.
74:
Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land,
including playing fields, should not be built on.
75: Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way
and access.
76: Local
communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to
identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to
them. By designating land as Local Green Space...
77: The Local Green Space... is reasonably close proximity to the
community it serves... recreational value (including as a playing
field...local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
92: Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the
environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for
recreation and wildlife.
157: Crucially, Local Plans should... be based on co-operation with
neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector
organisations...
171: Health and well-being... Local Planning Authorities... take account of
the health status and needs of the local population (such as for sports,
recreation and places of worship)...
I understand there is enormous pressure on local authorities to ear-mark
land for housing, but I do not think that selling off small pockets of
recreational land around housing estates that are highly prized by the
local community or "in-filling" is the answer. With reference to 52, I agree
that planning for large scale development is a better way of meeting our
housing needs.
I hope my
concerns will be listened to and our recreation fields will not be ruined for
us and our children,
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
373
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Ian FitzGerald
Bolton College
Support noted. In addition the college
site has been identified as a potential
new housing site should college use
cease.
Arnold Henry
Broompark Management
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC): Bolton College currently leases the
site on Victoria Road in Horwich. The College is supportive of the
proposal to designate the area used as playing fields into a housing
development site.
The premises are
now much larger than required and the College does not envisage a long
term presence on this site. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to the
College if the whole site including the current building footprint were also
designated for housing use as this would aid and fulfil the Colleges
property strategy. The College understands that the landlord and current
owner of the site is also supportive of this proposal and the aspiration of
the College.
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC) provides an exceptional opportunity
to provide reasonable priced housing in an existing residential area,
which is suitable in terms of access to services and has good transport
links. The site, which was previously used as part of the college, is no
longer used and has been subject to Japanese Knotweed infestation,
which requires immediate remediation. It is considered that the site is
actually a brownfield site under PPG3. We would ask Bolton Council to
consider extending the allocation for housing to the remainder of the
site, which is currently used as Bolton College. This will enable the
college to have flexibility in relation to relocation of part or all of its
facilities to the new town centre campus and the new proposed Horwich
Loco Works redevelopment educational provision. This aspect also has
the support of the Bolton College Directors.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
374
Support noted. In addition the college
site has been identified as a potential
new housing site should college use
cease.
Name
Barry Jubb
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to site 119 (Mount Street, Horwich) being developed for housing,
because it would be the culmination of what I have feared and
campaigned against for years. The very fact that it now being suggested
as an area for development is the result of the education department’s
neglect and abrogation of duty of care since the College was transferred
from the Councils ownership.
I personally have highlighted this neglect to Sport England, who have
placed it on their under threat list, which means they will object to the
change of use. Especially after the education department accepted
Seven Thousand Pounds for its use by Lostock Rugby Football Club for
the 2008/2009 season. They accepted this fee and accepted the fact that
the playing pitch could be refurbished. This fact makes this site protected
by Planning Policy Guidance 17 and all the legislation protecting “Open
Recreation Space”.
Plus there are your Key negative effects to overturn: 7.7 There are some allocations proposed on sites of recreational open
space and playing fields. Overall these sites do not score highly in the
sustainability appraisal for health and wellbeing, neighbourhood quality
and green infrastructure. This is due to the loss of recreational green
space, reducing opportunities for exercise. Availability and proximity to
green spaces has one of the biggest impacts on increasing physical
activity levels. Green spaces are essential to provide green lungs and
help to mitigate air pollution and associated respiratory diseases.
Reduction in urban green spaces and trees could result in a loss of
biodiversity and key recreation areas?
Yet again the Transport Infrastructure around this area could not support
such a development, as illustrated by the fact that other developments in
the area have restrictions onto Chorley New Road, which this proposed
development would also do.
Far better for Bolton’s aspirations to become a city would be the
complete refurbishment and enhancement of this site, in line with the
recommendation made by Knight Kavanagh, Page who stated there was
a shortfall of Open Recreation Space in Horwich. Making it a super
sports centre for the youth of the Brazley estate, and working in
partnership with perhaps Sport England and the Girls and Lads club this
area could become a satellite of the club in Bolton.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
375
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Patrick Kelly
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC): In light of the continued excessive
demand for places at our school, we have been notified of council
documentation regarding developments on the site at Mount Street.
Under the heading 'To improve assess to educational and learning
facilities' it is stated that ' The site could provide for the expansion of the
adjacent primary school'. I fully support the proposal that space be
provided for the expansion of St Mary's primary school as a priority.
David Kirk
Mount Street (19SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
The inclusion of proposed additional
housing site taking in the buildings and
grounds of Horwich College to allow
re-development should educational
use cease combined with the Mount
Street allocation 119SC may provide
scope to investigate possibilities for
school expansion.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
376
Name
Organisation
John Leyland
Claire
Massingham
Peter Mills
Bolton Council
St Mary's RC Primary
School
Comment Summary
Council response
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119sc) is recreational land and has been
used as such by the public, sports club and staff and students of Horwich
College of FE, which is now Bolton College, to my knowledge since 1966
at least. As far as I know this field belongs to Bolton College and is
known locally as "the college field".
1. PPG17 states that if recreation land is taken away for a different use, it
should be replaced with the same amount of land or greater in the same
area.
2. The 6 acre strategy states there should be 6 acres of free land per
1000 population.
3. All recreation land above 0.4 hectares is protected.
4.In the UDP Bolton is classified as a deprived area, therefore all open
green spaces should remain protected.
Mount Street (119SC): St Mary's is mentioned in this proposal. The
school is presently oversubscribed and has very limited green space.
The building consists of a central block, which is over 100 years old and
then various extensions and modifications which have taken place from
1960 to the present day. The school can see from the actual baptisms
that have taken place in the Parish that the school will continue to be
oversubscribed. Governors have concerns over the future plans for more
housing in Horwich and the demand this will have on places in schools,
and particularly Catholic schools in the area. The nearest catholic school
to St Mary's is over three miles away. In conclusion I support any plans
that would improve the facilities and increase the capacity for the school
in order to meet the growing demand.
Mount Street (119SC): This land was classed as recreational land in
2008/2009. When an application was granted to play rugby, Bolton
Council apparently spoiled the playing surface by inadequate
preparation. It also has an important water-course running through. The
6 acre strategy states that there should be 6 acres of free land per 1000
population, also land taken away should be replaced by the same
amount or greater in the same area.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
377
The inclusion of proposed additional
housing site taking in the buildings and
grounds of Horwich College to allow
re-development should educational
use cease combined with the Mount
Street allocation 119SC may provide
scope to investigate possibilities for
school expansion.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Shirres
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
Mount Street (119SC): We object to the wholesale inclusion of this area
as an allocation.
We consider that a serviced playing field remains an important need in
this locality particularly with the increase in households due to
development on the south side of Chorley New Road and, perhaps, in
the Brazley area. At a minimum, Station Park is about 1200m from this
west side of Brazley Estate. Upstream of the site is Nellie’s Clough.
Being a watercourse, this is effectively an ecozone and as such should
be regarded as part of Bolton’s urban & peri-urban ecological network.
Indeed, deer are seen frequently to using this course and, notably, the
stream provides habitat to amphibians.
Nellies Clough crosses the site in culvert. Consistent with Policy CG1.2
the aim should be to safeguard this course and, indeed, open up this
section in order to further extend interconnectivity.
This stream corridor with ample buffer zone must be highlighted and so
protected on the allocation plan to - in accordance with Policy CG1.1 safeguard this potential habitat from adverse effects of development.
The implication would be to split the site into two sites.
The Civic Trust has noted that an easy opportunity for habitat gain and a
green pedestrian corridor link between Chorley New Road and the
western extremity of Mansell Way was lost in the early days of
Middlebrook estate (off Northgate Close) development where beneath
the very narrow footpath corridor runs the further downstream end of
Nellies Clough. There must be no repetition of that.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Please see also the general strategic point about the failure to highlight
the principal watercourse corridors across the Draft Bolton Allocations
Plan and the above argument may be relevant to similar sites across
Bolton which the author is not aware of but for which there may be
potential for deculverting - provided ecological network continuity is
highlighted.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
378
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Richard Silvester
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC): I object to this land being allocated
as a Ward Councillor as it was classed as recreational land very recently
in 2008/09 when an application to play rugby on the land was accepted.
Football has also been played on this land less than 15 years ago.
I believe that this land can be used by the community in the future to play
sport on and could again be recreational land for the use and enjoyment
of the community.
If this land were to be developed, then the resulting loss would be
detrimental to the community.
I therefore object to this being allocated as a Ward Councillor.
Sarah Slack
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC): The adjacent Primary School is an
oversubscribed school being the only Catholic Primary in the
Horwich/Blackrod area. Hopefully this plan would allow the expansion of
this school to accommodate the obvious increase in applicants due to the
already increasing numbers of new dwellings in the local vicinity.
James Smith
Mount Street, Horwich (site 119SC): This is recreational land and has
been used as such by the public, sports clubs and the staff and students
of Horwich college of FE which is now Bolton College, to my knowledge
since 1966. 1. PPG17 states that if recreation land is taken away for a
different use it should be replaced with the same amount of land or
greater in the same area. 2 The 6 acre strategy states there should be 6
acres of free land per 1000 population. 3 All recreation land above 0.4
acres is protected. 4 In the UDP, Bolton is classified as a deprived area.
Therefore all open green spaces should remain protected.
Michelle Tonge
Mount Street (119SC): This site is adjacent to the only Catholic school in
Horwich, which has been continuously oversubscribed for years. There is
a housing estate opposite that is still undergoing expansion and will no
doubt have children who require a Catholic education. The land would be
a fantastic opportunity for St Mary's School to increase their capacity and
provide a service that is in great need in this area.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
The inclusion of proposed additional
housing site taking in the buildings and
grounds of Horwich College to allow
re-development should educational
use cease combined with the Mount
Street allocation 119SC may provide
scope to investigate possibilities for
school expansion.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
The inclusion of proposed additional
housing site taking in the buildings and
grounds of Horwich College to allow
re-development should educational
use cease combined with the Mount
Street allocation 119SC may provide
scope to investigate possibilities for
school expansion.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
379
Name
Ken Whowell
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Nellie's Clough (site 119SC): This is community land, used by local
people. My daughter and her friends played here when they were young.
This is greenbelt land with a conservation area close by: Nellie's Clough
should remain as it is, for the benefit of future generations.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
This site was historically playing fields
but has been unused and not
maintained as such for some years.
Development would improve the
appearance of the site and
surrounding area. It would have to
take into account Nellies Clough which
runs under the site in culvert. This
may well provide opportunities for
open space links through the site
including from Nellies Clough in the
Green Belt to the north.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Two Towns Area Forum: Mount Street (119SC): concerns that the former
playing fields are crossed by a culvert.
John Boyle
Bolton Council
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): Purchased this house for open
outlook and views. Was advised at the time that no building would take
place and ground unsuitable for building on.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
380
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
James Briggs
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): This area should remain as
recreational land for public use, with consideration given to planting more
trees in the future.
Gillian Cooke
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): Building would restrict any view and
privacy. Children enjoy playing on the grassed area. This area is totally
unsuitable for houses and there will be upset children of building takes
place.
Arthur and
Barbara Crane
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): This road is too narrow and very
dangerous with very bad turns especially near our house. Even the bus
stopped running because it is too dangerous and there is also a weight
limit on this road. This is the only bit of green space left for the estate
children to play, the park up on the hill top is too far and dangerous to let
your children go to play. The land itself is unstable and the water run-off
problem would be made worse. There should be double yellow lines on
this road. There have been a large number of accidents on the bend near
our house. The road is way too narrow.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
381
Name
David Kirk
Sylvia Mills
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Park Road, Kearsley (77SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): I strongly object to any sort of building
plans on the field facing my house. The reasons being that children from
the estate can play safely there and quite a number of dog owners walk
their dogs. We are fast running out of green spaces in Little Lever. And
on a personal note it would spoil my view.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
382
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Dorothy
Partington
I'm sorry to hear that there may be houses to be built on the field on Park
Road. Many of the children on the estate play football there. Also it is
used for dog walking. I live in Fifth Avenue but it's nice to see some open
space there.
Audrey Robb
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): Any development of this land will
reduce the selling power of these homes which cost more to buy when
purchased because of their open aspect. This area is a haven for wildlife.
William Smalley
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): We feel that developing this area
would have a detrimental effect on the residents who already live here.
The area of Park Road has already become too congested with cars to
allow it to retain a bus service. The field in question is also greatly
appreciated the residents as a recreation and dog walking area. It also
attracts a lot of wildlife.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
383
Name
Marion Smith
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): The area considered for the
Allocations Plan is unsuitable as the rear of the proposed area is a steep
incline to the below stream, part of Moses Gate Country Park. Its open
aspect is very attractive to all on Park Road and other residents on The
Dove Bank area, adding to the pleasant ambience. Children, wildlife and
dog walkers treasure this open area.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
384
Name
Emma Smith
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
The green area of Park Road identified by Bolton Council for houses is
an undisturbed, unlittered green space bordering part of the town's
Green Belt area. It enhances the Green Belt area of the Town and is
home to many variety of birds and wildlife, even deer from the
neighbouring Moses Gate Country park and Nob End have been known
to wander onto this area. It is a major dog walking site, not only with
residents from the immediate estate but also further afield and is a main
play area for many of the estates children. The council's documents
mention the need to maintain the Green Belt and detriment to the Green
Belt is actually identified as being a major negative issue when
considering the development of this area for houses.
The estate itself is currently overstretched in parking facilities as although
the estate is made up of seven 'roads' all of these bar Park Road are
pedestrianised meaning that all cars and traffic for the seven roads
utilises Park Road. The parking facilities are currently such a problem
that the majority of Park Road is permanently down to one lane and
additional houses in this area will only add further impact to this
increasing problem. Until 3-4 months ago there was an excellent bus
service along Park Road which catered to the many people on the estate
without transport and was indeed a lifeline to many of those unable to
walk the distance into the main part of the village. Due to the constant
difficulties the bus faced with manoeuvring around the various parked
cars and negotiating the 'one lane' of Park Road this bus has now been
re-routed to avoid Park Road.
It is also only a matter of years since speed bumps were introduced onto
Park Road in an attempt to slow down and control the amount of traffic
along Park Road and whilst, in the main, this has been successful further
housing development in this area is surely going to see an increase in
the flow of traffic and negate the very useful traffic calming measures
already in place.
The houses immediately facing this area are set below the level of the
pavement and proposed housing development area and as such are
currently subject to a great deal of run-off water and water logging
particularly through the wet winter months. Increased housing on the
green space opposite will only add to the surface water and drainage
problems currently experienced by many residents. As this proposed
housing allocation is also set at the height of the pavement and therefore
above the other houses on the estate any buildings or houses on this
land would be quite imposing on the current nearby housing.
The area proposed for the housing development is currently cherished
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
385
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
and looked after by the residents of the estate and unlike many other
open areas across the Borough is not subject to fly tipping but instead is
a valued safe area for the children of the estate to play and for dog
walkers, as well as providing a welcome view of some of the Borough's
cherished Green Belt land and surrounding hills.
I feel that rather than having a positive impact on this area further
housing will add great detriment to the estate in increased parking
problems, increased traffic flow, less wildlife, potentially increased
flooding and drainage problems as well as eliminating the area for safe
children's' play.
The council's own report identifies many of the areas / factors mentioned
above as being of detriment to the area and there are indeed more
negative factors identified in the report than positive factors. I trust that
the strength of feeling of the residents in protecting and preserving this
area on the edge of the Green Belt will be enough to persuade the
members of the council that of greater benefit to the area would be to
increase the parking spaces thereby allowing the valuable bus service to
return to Park Road and perhaps adding bins for dog waste to help
further protect this area.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
386
Council response
Name
Kenneth
Whitehead
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Objections to the proposed building of houses on the field on Park Road,
Little Lever:
*Access to Park Road is already cramped and poor due to narrow road
width and poor visibility (there is a blind bend which has become and
accident blackspot). GMPTE will confirm that the local bus service was
withdrawn due to the narrow road and parked cars, making it often
impassable! Residents have, on occasion, to park vehicles on the grass
of the field, churning it up. We do not have driveways and increased
housing would have a serious impact on an already difficult traffic
situation.
*Flooding: Any properties built on the field would be higher than our
homes, and an already existing problem with run off would be
exacerbated.
*Shading/loss of lights. Because the proposed dwellings would be higher
than our homes, we would suffer a significant loss of light, and we would
be "overlooked" from the new dwellings.
*The field is acknowledged to be built on unstable ground - the impact of
this is not clear to those without specialised knowledge, but is of concern
to us.
*Aesthetically, the field acts as a buffer zone on the edge of the green
belt and is much beloved to all, especially children and dog walkers
(many of whom do not live on Park Road).
*Wildlife: whilst not specifically listed as a wildlife haven, being on the
edge of the Croal Irwell Valley, there are many "wild" animals to be
viewed and appreciated (Foxes, Hedgehogs and Muntjac Deer).
Whilst we acknowledge the need for more housing, we hope that our
concerns will be taken into consideration.
There is (from your detailed map) a choice of building land available
without knowingly adding to the habitat and traffic congestion we already
experience.
We have a well maintained and tended field by Bolton Council, which is
appreciated very much and provides a safe and pleasant environment for
many local residents.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
387
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Robert Whittle
Park Road, Little Lever (site 77sc): New housing on Park Road field
would be too close to Green Belt land. The road is too narrow and
parking is already a problem - even if new car parking is created the new
residents visitors may park on Park Road. Housing development will
spoil the view. The land is currently used for recreation.
David Chadwick
Part Street, Westhoughton (site 107sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
Kevan Jones
Part Street, Westhoughton (site 107sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Highways concerns and the scale of
parking required as a result are
detailed matters that can be resolved
at the planning application stage.
Part Street is underused land within
urban Westhoughton. The Core
Strategy approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. The Core
Strategy allows up to 20% of new
housing on greenfield land. Traffic
implications will need to be fully
considered.
Part Street is underused land within
urban Westhoughton. The Core
Strategy approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. The Core
Strategy allows up to 20% of new
housing on greenfield land. Traffic
implications will need to be fully
considered.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
388
Name
David Kirk
Chris Peacock
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Part Street (107SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Part Street, Westhoughton (site 107sc): Many of the points outlined in
relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc) are applicable to this site.
Part Street is underused land within
urban Westhoughton. The Core
Strategy approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. The Core
Strategy allows up to 20% of new
housing on greenfield land. Traffic
implications will need to be fully
considered.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
389
Part Street is underused land within
urban Westhoughton. The Core
Strategy approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. The Core
Strategy allows up to 20% of new
housing on greenfield land. Traffic
implications will need to be fully
considered.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Linda Thomas
As a former Westhoughton South Councillor I fully understand and have
sympathy with the arguments of the current Councillors. As well as
increased traffic from our own development Westhoughton is a rat run for
Wigan commuters. I have concerns that developers will see the
Collingwood Way plot as a softening of our resolve in the Bowlands Hey
area.
David Kirk
Radcliffe Road, Breightmet (75SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
The Core Strategy approach of
concentrating development within the
existing built up area while
safeguarding protected open land, the
majority of which is around
Westhoughton will mean choices have
to be made about developing
greenfield sites. The Core Strategy
allows up to 20% of new housing on
greenfield land. Traffic implications will
need to be fully considered and safe
access secured to sites.
The Core Strategy allows some
development of sites like these to meet
housing objectives. The site is
informal open space which is subject
to considerable changes of level and
therefore provides only limited
opportunities for recreation other than
dog walking. Any development would
have to ensure safe access.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
390
Name
Organisation
David Kirk
Michael Lomax
Bolton Council
Newholme Farm
Comment Summary
Council response
Radcliffe Road, Breightmet (74SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Radcliffe Road, Darcy Lever (site 74SC): We support the use of this site
for housing development. It may be suitable for low rise development for
older people. The site has good access to local amenities with shops,
public transport and a mix of housing nearby. As a housing site the
location would be suitable to a range of households, particularly those
who have family living nearby.
This site is not Green Belt and is
classed as urban area. It consists of a
rough field which is now surrounded by
modern housing development and is of
little amenity value. There may be
scope to retain the hedgerow
alongside Radcliffe Road.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
391
Support noted.
Name
Organisation
Richard Platt
Judith Nelson
David Kirk
Bolton Council
English Heritage
Comment Summary
Council response
Radcliffe Road, Darcy Lever (site 75SC): This small strip of land is
narrow, how are cars leaving their drives expected to get onto the
extremely busy Radcliffe Road? The plan shows the covering in of
Ramsden Street. Will this mean that there will only be one way in and out
of the estate? This would be bad news for the emergency services and
existing residents. It would also result in the loss of an important green
open space.
The Core Strategy allows some
development of sites like these to meet
housing objectives. The site is
informal open space which is subject
to considerable changes of level and
therefore provides only limited
opportunities for recreation other than
dog walking. Any development would
have to ensure safe access. This plan
is for allocation purposes and therefore
this should not be read as affecting
Ramsden Street which provides
access.
Whilst the buildings here are not listed it is the location of the Bolton
Union Workhouse together with cottage homes and gymnasium and later
hospital buildings. I am not sure what remains of these buildings,
whether their significance has been assessed or how development
proposals here may affect them.
The demolition of the workhouse
building has taken place, evaluation on
behalf of the Trust having concluded
that it was not economically viable to
conserve the building and a report by
property consultants advised that the
building could not be disposed of in its
current form.
This site is underused landscaped
grounds within the Hospital site and it
contributes little to either amenity or for
public use. The Core Strategy does
allow some greenfield development
providing it meets strategic housing
objectives.
Redgate Way (91SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
392
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
David Chadwick
Bolton Council
Roscoe's Farm, Westhoughton (site 111sc):
1. Many of the points outlined in relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc)
are applicable to this site.
2. This allocation is not within the urban area being bounded by a
proposed substantial local nature reserve to the west and school playing
fields to the south.
3. It is currently a greenfield site.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
393
Roscoe's Farm is a residual area of
agricultural land within urban
Westhoughton. The Core Strategy
approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. This is
remnant agricultural land which adjoins
a larger area of Hall Lee Bank Park to
the east which will remain as open
land. The Core Strategy allows up to
20% of new housing on greenfield
land. Traffic implications will need to
be fully considered and safe access
secured onto Bolton Road.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Kevan Jones
Roscoe's Farm, Westhoughton (site 111sc):
1. Many of the points outlined in relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc)
are applicable to this site.
2. This allocation is not within the urban area being bounded by a
proposed substantial local nature reserve to the west and school playing
fields to the south.
3. It is currently a greenfield site.
Roscoe's Farm is a residual area of
agricultural land within urban
Westhoughton. The Core Strategy
approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. This is
remnant agricultural land which adjoins
a larger area of Hall Lee Bank Park to
the east which will remain as open
land. The Core Strategy allows up to
20% of new housing on greenfield
land. Traffic implications will need to
be fully considered and safe access
secured onto Bolton Road.
Chris Peacock
Roscoe's Farm, Westhoughton (site 111sc):
1. Many of the points outlined in relation to Collingwood Way (site 109sc)
are applicable to this site.
2. This allocation is not within the urban area being bounded by a
proposed substantial local nature reserve to the west and school playing
fields to the south.
3. It is currently a greenfield site.
Roscoe's Farm is a residual area of
agricultural land within urban
Westhoughton. The Core Strategy
approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. This is
remnant agricultural land which adjoins
a larger area of Hall Lee Bank Park to
the east which will remain as open
land. The Core Strategy allows up to
20% of new housing on greenfield
land. Traffic implications will need to
be fully considered and safe access
secured onto Bolton Road.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
394
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Alison Rotheram
Roscoe's Farm, Westhoughton (site 111sc). The green fields are a
pleasure to see in the built up area. The traffic is already horrendous on
Bolton Road this will only add to the chaos. Please re consider this plan.
Every day people walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air of this little
patch of greenery. It would be criminal to build on this lovely green area
and decimate the wildlife . There are so few areas where there is a bit of
green ( excluding parks). Bolton road is a busy bendy road particularly
where you are suggesting to have access for more housing. Accidents
will inevitably happen.. Bolton Road already has many accidents and
near misses. The infra structure cannot support more houses. It is
creaking already!
Roscoe's Farm is a residual area of
agricultural land within urban
Westhoughton. The Core Strategy
approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. This is
remnant agricultural land which adjoins
a larger area of Hall Lee Bank Park to
the east which will remain as open
land. The Core Strategy allows up to
20% of new housing on greenfield
land. Traffic implications will need to
be fully considered and safe access
secured onto Bolton Road.
Malcolm
Woodward
Roscoe's Farm, Westhoughton (Site 111SC): I am very much opposed to
this development proposed by Peel Holdings. First and foremost it is
representative of the over build that has already taken place in
Westhoughton.
I was told by our narrowly defeated parliamentary candidate that the
Unitary Plan for Westhoughton is much higher in % terms than any other
part in the Authority. Bolton Road is already the site of a major housing
development where the demolition of the old weaving mill has resulted in
a large building project with access onto Bolton Road very close to that
proposed new development. To be talking in terms of an additional site
on the other side of the road to my mind is completely irresponsible and
without any consideration for the people who live here. Access onto an
already busy road demonstrates a lack of understanding by those who
propose an option of two access points – one of these is on a bend in the
road near to Central Drive and the other at Forshaw’s now derelict site is
no more than 50 metres from the entrance to Westhoughton High
School. I can see no advantage and many concerning safety issues in
this proposed new build. Westhoughton is already in a state of gridlock
with excessive traffic problems in Bolton road as well as all other roads in
and out of the town. To further add to this chaos shows a lack of care or
understanding for the people of this town. We have already experienced
Roscoe's Farm is a residual area of
agricultural land within urban
Westhoughton. The Core Strategy
approach of concentrating
development within the existing built
up area while safeguarding protected
open land, the majority of which is
around Westhoughton will mean
choices have to be made about
developing greenfield sites. This is
remnant agricultural land which adjoins
a larger area of Hall Lee Bank Park to
the east which will remain as open
land. The Core Strategy allows up to
20% of new housing on greenfield
land. Traffic implications will need to
be fully considered and safe access
secured onto Bolton Road.
Bolton Council
Organisation
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
395
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Bolton’s “solution” to our ever increasing road congestion by siting traffic
lights at every available junction – Bolton’s apparent answer to our traffic
problems – which only adds to the problems motorists have to put up
with. There are many in Westhoughton who take the view that the town is
being used as a “cash cow” with excessive building whilst giving little or
no consideration to the wishes of the people who live here. I hope you
will support my objection to this development and I can say that I speak
for many others who feel the same way.
Westhoughton North and Chew Moor Area Forum: How many houses
are planned to be built on the land at Roscoe's Farm? And how would
access to this development be made?
Mrs Ann
Emma Ashworth
Bolton Council
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): A much used area of green, used by the
local residents, especially young children. This allocation would result in
the loss of public recreational open area.
Shawbury Close (124SC): This piece of land is not suitable for
development as it will have a detrimental effect on the area and on
people living directly around the site. It is currently used by children to
play and is also enjoyed by dog walkers. There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
396
An illustrative figure of 170 dwellings
has been used. The allocations plan is
primarily about establishing the
principle of housing development
rather than exact detail. Access was
safeguarded via proposals for the
Forshaw's site
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Bibby
Billington
Johanne
Brightwell
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Shawbury Close (124SC): Children use this field for play and social
occasions. We have enough properties to support our friendly village.
Shawbury Close (124SC): My wife and I are against any plan to build
council houses on any area where children and adults play or exercise.
Adding more houses around Blackrod would put more pressure on
schools, roads, etc. Green areas should be left alone. Build them near to
where you live - probably not in Blackrod.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): I want to register my objection to the plans
to build new houses in Blackrod.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Blackrod is not like any other borough in Bolton, it is a village and has a
real community feel and spirit, we do not want or need any further
building projects in the village.
I live near the proposed site at Shawbury Close so your plans for
development will directly affect me. This piece of land is not appropriate
or suitable for development, it will have a detrimental effect on the area
and on people living directly around the site. It is only a small piece of
land which is currently used by children to play and is also enjoyed by
dog walkers. We have access to very few pieces of green space, please
don’t take them away from us.
There has already been a lot of private development in Blackrod over the
years and the infrastructure of the village just won't take anymore. We
only have one main road through the village so more housing would have
a significant impact on the roads and parking. You also have to look at
the impact on schools, we only have two primary schools in the village
and these are already over subscribed as is the local High School. We
also only have a small health centre so accessing health services would
be made more difficult.
Margaret Brown
Bolton Council
I really hope you reconsider your plans to develop this site.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): I believe that it would be very detrimental
to the estate to build on the small park area we have. The estate would
be overcrowded and there would be no "leisure" area at all for such a
large estate. The reason I bought the property in the first place was
because of its Green Belt location. Slowly this has been encroached
upon, planning permission has been granted for larger fences to be built,
large trees cut down etc. We value the "green" areas and will fight to
keep them.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
397
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Alan Bury
The recreational land on Greenbarn Way (Shawbury Close) has long
been available for any of the local children to play on. Initially it also
included a play area for the younger children. This was removed by the
council some years ago and it comes as no surprise to find that the
council would like to build on what remains.
Diane Calvert
There is an ongoing issue in Blackrod with children playing in the streets
due to the limited facilities of the town. This is both a nuisance to others
and a danger to the children. The idea to build on one of the few
remaining spaces in the town available for children to play on is
unbelievable.
Shawbury Close (124SC): I object to this proposed allocation
Colin Carpenter
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): We strongly object to the development of
this green site as Greenbarn Way is a well established family orientated
estate, where children are limited to a safe play area as it is.
Ronald Chinn
Shawbury Close (124SC): More green belt taken over. More families will
need more schools. Roads will have more traffic jams. Blackrod used to
be a nice village now its becoming like a small city, more traffic than
ever. Cant keep roads In good repair now. God help is when we get
more traffic.
We believe the Shawbury Close site was designated as green space and
a children's play area on the planning documents. Even this facility has
disappeared.
I grew up on Shawbury Close ( my parents still live there) and myself and
friends spent a great deal of time playing safely on the park along with
lots of other Blackrod children. At that time there was also a playground
for smaller children which has since been removed. I now have two
young children of my own who play on the park regularly after school
(Blackrod Primary) and when visiting Grandparents and school friends
that live on Shawbury Close and Greenbarn way. If the park was taken
away they would be left without any community play area close by.
Ronald Crispin
Gary Cullen
As I understand it the park was developed as amenity land by Barratt
homes as a condition of their gaining planning permission to build the
estate. I'm very sure that Barratts would have been more than happy to
build on it at the time but were prevented (rightly) by Bolton planners. My
point is; what's changed? Don't we want amenity land any longer?
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
398
Council response
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Paul Dawson
Derbyshire
Hilary Dewhurst
Derrick Fletcher
Hilda Gleaves
Maureen
Greeson
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Shawbury Close (site 124sc):
*Why was this land built on originally? I understand that this area had
been mined and therefore some air shafts remained.
*Traffic
issues - this is already a problem, i.e. parking, road maintenance.
*Residents enjoy open spaces, henceforth want to live in Blackrod. This
area used to be a children's play ground. All children's play toys have
been moved to Scot Lane End Park, creating difficulty for both
pedestrians and motorists on Manchester Road.
I wish to object to Shawbury Close (site 124SC) being developed for
housing as shown in Bolton's Draft Allocations Plan. When the
Barratt/Wimpey homes were built in the late 1970s/early 1980s, the area
adjoining Shawbury Close/Corston Grove was designated as a play area
for children, and as it is in a Greenfield area, it should remain and be
improved as a play area, not developed for more houses. There is
already a shortage of school places in Blackrod, and also in the Bolton
borough; the Health Centre/Doctors' Surgery is full to capacity, lack of
parking and parking restrictions in Blackrod is intolerable - all of these
issues need to be addressed short-term before more housing is
considered.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc):
*The value of my property will be reduced.
*Blackrod is not socially equipped to service further housing
development.
*The area is beautiful Green Belt and pastural land, it would be a travesty
to build on it. The land surrounding Blackrod is the best thing about the
area.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc):
*Spoiling an already small area of green belt and play area for children.
*Creating more traffic in an already over-crowded area. Parking and
access for service vehicles and ambulances will be Horrendous.
*Lack of privacy and loss of light for the many bungalows in the area if
houses are to be built.
Shawbury Close (124SC): If building is permitted on this site it will
remove a valuable play area for the children already living in the nearby
houses. More housing on this estate will further increase the traffic and
parking problems.
Shawbury Close (124SC): Playing on these fields keeps children safe.
Removing these playing field would be a great disservice to future
generations.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
399
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Comment Summary
Council response
Suzanne Hartop
Shawbury Close (124SC): This open space should remain as it is able to
provide a valuable recreational facility for the many children who live in
and around the Greenbarn Way / Shawbury Close/ Corston Grove area.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Andrew Hartop
Shawbury Close (124SC): This open space should remain as it is able to
provide a valuable recreational facility for the many children who live in
and around the Greenbarn Way / Shawbury Close/ Corston Grove area.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Jean Hibbert
Shawbury Close (124SC): When the Barratt estate was built some years
ago the company received compensation for not using this pocket of land
for building but to allow the many children living on the estate
somewhere to play. Why has this changed? There are still children living
in those houses that need somewhere to play. The so called play area at
Vicarage Road is an absolute disgrace and improvements to it were
cancelled in the recent cuts. Is another area of recreation to be lost to
building?
Shawbury Close (124SC): I object to this proposed allocation
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Mary Johnson
Organisation
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Barry Jubb
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): I object to the loss of these three areas for
the same reasons that I have objected to the loss of other Greenspace
areas, whether they be for formal or informal recreational use.
D Lockhart
Shawbury Close (124SC): This area of green belt land was previously
built as a community park for the children of Blackrod. Development
would affect the farm access. and obstruct views from nearby properties.
This would create extra noise, extra traffic and an accident waiting to
happen.
The 'green space' adjacent to the residential property of Shawbury Close
has been, and remains an important area on the Greenbarn estate,
providing a facility for families/residents to experience an element of
freedom and openness. Although small in area, the value that it holds
has great significance to us for whom it has been a valued neighbour
since the construction of the estate in the late 1970s.
Few similar spaces exist for families like mine who are 'estate dwellers'
but who appreciate the safe haven provided by our valued green space.
I place on record my objection to any building development here.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): This is the only community centre in
Blackrod. The football field is used regularly by local teams. I strongly
object to any houses being built on this land and site.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Hazel Lord
Margaret Massey
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
400
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Moores
Anthony Mugan
Brenda Ramsey
Sandra Ridgway
Katie Roberts
Joanne Sedwell
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I would also like to object to the proposal to use the land listed 124SC
(Shawbury Close). This field is used regularly by local primary school
children and dog-walkers. Losing this area would reduce the amount of
safe play areas for children who live in the centre of the village to use.
Shawbury Close (124SC): Development of the site will result in the
following: 1. Additional traffic and parking on an already busy
throughroute (Greenbarn Way). 2. Loss of the only green space on the
estate and several mature trees. 3. Spoiled aspect out over the green
belt/farmland.
Shawbury Close (124SC): This is an area where children play. Where
else will they go?
Objects to the proposed housing development at Shawbury Close,
Blackrod (124SC) for the following reasons:
*Loss of children's play area.
* Increased housing would see an increase in traffic congestion within
the village.
*Local primary and secondary schools already over subscribed.
* Local shops already have insufficient parking facilities.
*Increased demands on the local medical centre and its services.
*Lack of play areas for children would see them playing in other perhaps
unsafe places and on the street, which with an increase in traffic could
have severe consequences.
*Local train service already poor especially at peak times, my husband
who travels to work in Manchester daily frequently does so standing the
whole way!
*Blackrod has a large number of equestrian facilities, many riders have to
use the local roads to hack to the nearest limited bridleways in the area.
An increase in traffic would make this much more difficult and dangerous.
*Many reasonable dog walkers use this area to exercise their pets.
Shawbury Close (124SC): The land was originally left as amenity land as
we understand, which was greatly received. It continues to be amenity
land. It is a meeting place for local children and the land is known local
by children as 'froggy park' The addition of property to the area of land
would affect the aesthetic appearance of the area and create overcrowding in the area. The building of property would result in a large
increase in the flow of traffic along Greenbarn Way. Additional property
would also put extra pressure on already over-subsidised local primary
schools.
Shawbury Close (124SC): 1. Increased traffic. 2. Negative impact on
biodiversity. 3. Increased demand for already overstretched services. 4.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
401
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Reduced safe areas for children to play.
Dorothy Speak
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): The government strategy is to stop
children being couch potatoes. Yet the local government want to take the
local children's playing areas away. Where else would they go to play?
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Stoddard
I am writing to object to the proposed plans to build on Site No. 124 SC Shawbury Close / Corston Grove Blackrod.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
I object for the following reasons:
1. More houses will no doubt increase the traffic on Greenbarn Way
which is already extremely busy and dangerous for the number of
children who play in the area
2. More houses will no doubt mean more children trying to get into the
already over-subscribed Blackrod Primary School, meaning increased
competition for places for children already residing in the area.
Karen Stringer
Jacqueline Sutton
Joyce Taylor
Bolton Council
Shawbury Close (124SC): This piece of land is not suitable for
development as it will have a detrimental effect on the area and on
people living directly around the site. It is currently used by children to
play and is also enjoyed by dog walkers. There has been a lot of
development in Blackrod over the years and the infrastructure of the
village just won't take any more . We only have one main road through
the village so more housing would have a significant impact on the roads
and parking. You also have to look at the impact on schools, we only
have two primary schools in the village and these are already
oversubscribed, as is the local high school. We also only have a small
health centre so accessing health services would be made more difficult.
Shawbury Close (124SC): This is a village, not a town centre. No to
building on green belt, its why we purchased our properties. No to
spoiling our scenic views and built up areas. Children play safely here all
day long. No to added traffic on a small village road and added noise.
This was a park specially for our children, Disgusting bureaucrats making
money and receiving back handers. No respect for our village and
community.
Shawbury Close (124SC): I object to every spare bit of land that children
can play on in Blackrod is going. There are very few open spaces left.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
402
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Name
Brenda Thomas
Joan Trevena
Carol Wood
Nicola Jane
Woods
Kathleen Woods
Joseph Wynne
Barry Jubb
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Shawbury Close (124SC): Greenbarn Way is a very busy road,
especially at school times - more housing would cause even greater
problems with traffic congestion at peak times. Plus the land is used as a
play area by the local children - to build on this land would be detrimental
to the area.
I wish to object to the proposed development of Shawbury Close as we
need our green areas for children to play and to keep our village
atmosphere.
Shawbury Close (site 124sc): We do not need more housing in Blackrod.
The proposed site has a rubbish tip under the green. Barratts refused to
build on top - because of the cost of filling in the tip no houses could be
built on top 35 years ago. This space forms a valuable place for children
to play safely.
Shawbury Close (124SC): If taken away there will be nowhere for
toddlers and youths to play and exercise
Shawbury Close (124SC): This open space should remain as it is able to
provide a valuable recreational facility for the many children who live in
and around the area in safe environment.
Object to proposed housing allocation at Shawbury Close (site 124sc)
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Site 115SC (Land off Ox Hey Lane): I support this proposed
development, because it is an area of greenspace that as never been
used for recreation purposes, having been the property of firstly
Manchester Corporation Water Works and latterly United Utilities.
On the caution side adequate easement will have to be made for the
Thirlmere Aqueduct that runs through the southern part of the site.
If Greenspace as to be targeted to meet the requirements of the Draft
Allocation Plan, then this is the type of plot you should be seeking to
utilise.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
403
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Shawbury Close (124SC) has value as
open space.
Support noted.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Site of Conservative Club (32SC): This land is part of the wildlife corridor
along Will Hey Brook and as such should be protected under Core
Strategy policy
The primary function of wildlife
corridors is to provide a network of
urban open land to support habitats
and species. The site forms only a
small part of a wider corridor which will
be unaffected, any development of the
site will have to ensure that continuity
of the corridor is not affected. Trees to
the south of the proposed allocation
are covered by TPOs, retention of
which will help to maintain the value of
the corridor.
Comments noted. Transport modelling
work has been carried out for the
overall levels of development of the
borough and issues arising from this
will inform possible transport solutions.
Janet Stitt
At each proposed site in Westhoughton consideration is needed
regarding infrastructure provision and the volume of traffic passing
through Westhoughton at peak periods. A problem on one road can
cause gridlock.
Judith Nelson
English Heritage
St Pauls Mill is opposite the grade II* Swan Lane Mills. What appraisal
process has been undertaken to help inform decisions on the balance
between conservation, refurbishment and re-use or demolition and new
build.
St Pauls Mill was considered through
the Mills Assessment process which
concluded that the mill was worthy of
retention and re-use.
Judith Nelson
English Heritage
St Thomas's Church is grade II listed. It would be helpful to understand
how development on this site would affect the heritage asset and its
setting.
The building is back in use as a
church.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
404
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
St. Catherine's Academy (70SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
This is vacant unused urban land of
low amenity value surrounded on three
sides by housing. Development would
bring this site back into productive use.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
405
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Suffolk Road, Kearsley (86SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
the remaining open space nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
406
Name
Rachel Brindle
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I object to building houses on part of land 117SC (Swallowfield Hotel with
Brazley Centre) because:
1. Although the building of houses on the Swallowfield Hotel is brownfield
and replacing an existing building, I object to the building of houses on
Brazley car park, Brazley Community Centre, and land around St.
Elizabeth's Church including the public access between Ainsworth
Avenue and Cedar Avenue.
2. The Community Centre and car park is well-used by community
groups and residents of Brazley and Claypool, including Brazley elderly
day care staff and volunteers, minibuses for disabled people, Brazley
youth club, Beavers, Cubs and Scouts and Community Fun Days have
been held on the tarmac car park which provides a good surface for
stalls and activities. My children attend Brazley Youth Club which is very
well run and they use the land outside for games and activities.
3. The site provides a green corridor for public access away from Chorley
New Road traffic and offers children a safe route for walking and biking
to Claypool Primary School.
4. The site is of high landscape value to our local community and
includes large mature trees which add to the visual amenity of the
residential area and should be protected.
I would like to highlight the fact that there are strong community residents
associations in the area looking after the needs of their residents and
giving them a voice. These are Brazley Residents Association, New
Chapel Lane Residents Association and Claypool Residents Association.
There is enormous community spirit and a willingness to get together and
make the best of our housing estates in Horwich where we look after
each other and put on events for the community to enjoy.
In addition to this the National Planning Policy Framework urges
planners in their Local Plans to do the following (with specific reference
to numbered policies):
52: The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through
planning for large scale development.
74: Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land,
including playing fields, should not be built on.
75: Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way
and access.
76: Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be
able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance
to them. By designating land as Local Green Space...
77: The Local Green Space... is reasonably close proximity to the
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
407
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
community it serves... recreational value (including as a playing
field...local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
92: Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the
environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for
recreation and wildlife.
157: Crucially, Local Plans should... be based on co-operation with
neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector
organisations...
171: Health and well-being... Local Planning Authorities... take account of
the health status and needs of the local population (such as for sports,
recreation and places of worship)...
I understand there is enormous pressure on local authorities to ear-mark
land for housing, but I do not think that selling off small pockets of
recreational land around housing estates that are highly prized by the
local community or "in-filling" is the answer. With reference to 52, I agree
that planning for large scale development is a better way of meeting our
housing needs.
I hope my concerns will be listened to and our recreation fields will not be
ruined for us and our children,
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
408
Council response
Name
Elizabeth
Broderick
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I believe that site 117 (Swallowfield Hotel with Brazley Centre) already
has a validated planning permission for apartments, however, the
boundary for the site goes beyond that of the planning permission to
incorporate Brazley Community Hall and Horwich Day Centre. Both
these neighbourhood facilities are well used and their loss would be of
detriment to the local community, reducing the potential for cultural
activity in the area. The Day Centre is highly valued by its users for its
bright and airy environment and relatively attractive grounds, which
raises the well-being of its users. This aspect of the site also contributes
positively to the street scene along this part of Chorley New Road.
Development here would be negative.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
It would seem to me that development of housing in place of these
facilities would be rather contrary to the Councils Core Strategy policy
SC2, which positively encourages the provision of community facilities
within neighbourhoods. The current proposal would result in a loss,
unless such facilities were to be replaced with new and improved ones
elsewhere in the vicinity. Overall the current position is of greater social
and environmental benefit than the development of housing within the
extended area at this site.
Ian Nicholas
Farnell
Bolton Council
I propose that the site boundary be redrawn to omit the day centre and
community hall, or a commitment be made to replace these with
upgraded facilities nearby.
Brazley Centre (117SC): It’s the only green land we have around here.
The rest are farmer's fields and/or bogs. It's a nice quiet area and having
somewhere to sit, walk and picnic on nice days is essential. As someone
who lives in a flat it is good to have a decent area for kids to play in and
be sociable.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
409
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Carole Gerondi
Jane Gill
Andrew Gill
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Brazley Centre (117SC): The land at Cedar Avenue is attractive and well
used by children and people with dogs. How many green and open
spaces must be destroyed for the development of yet more houses in
Horwich. Where are children supposed to play. The main park is a long
way from Cedar Avenue. The Day Care Centre and its green space is
well used by elderly and vulnerable people. They sit outside on the grass
and play dominoes, ball games and have cups of tea in the shade. They
can chat with people who pass and stroke the dogs. What will happen
when all this is gone and replaced with houses that don't need to be built
here.
Brazley Centre (117SC): I object to the closure of one of our few
remaining Day Care Centres. It is the only one in the area.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Brazley Centre (117SC): I find it abhorrent that you 'The Council' deem it
necessary to close the only day care centre in Bolton West for the
purposes of selling the land for building. There are enough brownfield
sites in the area without having to knock down a valued resource for the
elderly. Claypool Road for example has enough land opposite the flats
for your greedy needs. Also selling of recreational land that is used by
the community leaves me fuming! Search your conscience. When the
time comes for you and your families to require these services they will
be gone!
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
410
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Tracy Gudgeon
Steven Gudgeon
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
The Brazley Community Centre and Horwich Day Care Centre are
important to the community both in Horwich and Bolton. My family and I
are well aware of the sterling work at the day care centre for the older
people of Bolton and Horwich due to family members and friend having
used this in the past, present and hopefully future. It is not good enough
to simply say that these facilities would be moved elsewhere because
that is too vague and lacks any evidence of thought or consideration. The
people involved in these policy decisions should go out into the
community to see for themselves what this land and these buildings are
actually used for. They should speak to the people who used them, and
also those who live around them to understand the true impact on the
community. The health and dignity of these people and that for future
generations are at stake. We are aware that housing, both private and
social, is required now and more so will be required in future but there
are more suitable targets to consider as I am sure we all know places
that are dumping grounds and dilapidated buildings that could be
demolished to make way for better housing without such impact on the
community.
The Brazley Community Centre and Horwich Day Care Centre are
important to the community both in Horwich and Bolton. My family and I
are well aware of the sterling work at the day care centre for the older
people of Bolton and Horwich due to family members and friend having
used this in the past, present and hopefully future. It is not good enough
to simply say that these facilities would be moved elsewhere because
that is too vague and lacks any evidence of thought or consideration. The
people involved in these policy decisions should go out into the
community to see for themselves what this land and these buildings are
actually used for. They should speak to the people who used them, and
also those who live around them to understand the true impact on the
community. The health and dignity of these people and that for future
generations are at stake. We are aware that housing, both private and
social, is required now and more so will be required in future but there
are more suitable targets to consider as I am sure we all know places
that are dumping grounds and dilapidated buildings that could be
demolished to make way for better housing without such impact on the
community.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
411
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Horrocks
Brazley Centre (117SC): I object to this proposed allocation
Barry Jubb
I object to the proposed housing allocation on the Swallowfield Hotel with
Brazley Centre site (117SC) but not in its entirety. In its entirety it would
be an over development of the area and as such the Transport
Infrastructure around this area could not support such a development. As
illustrated by the fact that other developments in the area have
restrictions onto Chorley New Road, which this proposed development,
would also do.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
A better solution would be to either compulsory purchase the site of the
Swallowfield Hotel and develop it with the Old Library site along the lines
of the Belong Village in Atherton. Or allow the site owner of the
Swallowfields to purchase the site of the Library on the understanding
that they develop it along the lines of the Belong Village in Atherton. This
would allow the reduced vehicular access needed for this facility to be via
Cedar Avenue, which would be more acceptable than the over
development proposed.
Angela Kelly
Bolton Council
This coupled with the fact that the Brazley Resource could be given to
the local residents or Bolton at Home for the use of the community, which
would prevent the loss of a vital focal centre for the local community.
Brazley Centre (117SC): Residents and users of the Day Care Centre
use the green area outside the centre for recreation. This proposal would
have a negative impact on users and residents.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
412
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
John Leyland
Peter Mills
Richard Shirres
Bolton Council
Bolton & District Civic
Trust
Comment Summary
Council response
Swallowfield Hotel with Brazley Centre (site 117SC): Part of this land has
planning permission, if the other part is built on it will remove a small but
pleasant amenity between the buildings along Chorley New Road.
Brazley was considered a deprived area and therefore the NRF supplied
£200,000 to build the community centre, therefore, if it is to be knocked
down the council should build another one. However, there is no suitable
site in the area, proving to me at least, that we are already short of open
spaces in this area.
The removal of the community Centre and car park would deprive the
community of a well used facility and would "fill in" one of the spaces left
between buildings in the area.
The site on the old Swallowfield Hotel (already given permission for flats)
contains the Brazley Recreational Centre, library building and car park,
which is used continuously. So what is Bolton going to provide as a
replacement?
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Brazley Centre (117SC): Since the closure of Brazley library in 1997
there have been several hundred homes constructed – with now several
hundred more planned – within the former library catchment (Nb. Library
catchment area defined by 1200m radius). From this site, Horwich
library is 3km away. Similarly, it is also 35 to 40 minutes via public
transport to access Bolton library. Consequently, there is a stronger
case, in spatial planning terms, to have a library provided at this site.
We object to eradication of such a valuable asset which has been an
established of the built environment for more than 50 years.
We consider the building could be refurbished and brought back into use,
as part of associated residential development, if funding could be
obtained through planning-gain supplement. If that were to be the case
we should have no objection to extending a housing allocation beyond
the former swallow field hotel site.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
413
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Richard Silvester
James Smith
Stella Truman
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
As a Ward Councillor I understand that the Swallowfield site has already
been allocated for housing and I have no objection for this part of the site
and also the part of the site covering the former Brazley library being
used for housing.
What I do object to is the land which covers the Brazley Community Hall
and its car park being used for housing.
I believe that the site plan should be amended in this exercise so that
only half of this site is allocated - i.e. the southern part of the site
covering the Swallowfield site and the former Brazley library and the
northern part of the site covering the Brazley Community Hall and car
park should be excluded from 117SC.
The loss of the Brazley Community Hall which is an asset to the local
community, would be detrimental if it were to be closed and lost.
Therefore until the future of the Community Hall is decided, the plan
should be amended as requested.
Swallowfield Hotel with Brazley Centre (site 117SC): Part of this land has
planning permission. If the other part is built on it will remove a small but
pleasant amenity between the buildings along Chorley New Road. NRF
Funding was used to build the community centre. The reason given was
the area was considered to be a deprived area, unfortunately this is still
the case. The removal of the community centre and car park would
deprive the community of a well used facility and would fill in one of the
few spaces left between buildings in the area. 1. PPG17 states that if
recreation land is taken away for a different use it should be replaced
with the same amount of land or greater in the same area. 2 The 6 acre
strategy states there should be 6 acres of free land per 1000 population.
3 All recreation land above 0.4 acres is protected. 4 In the UDP, Bolton is
classified as a deprived area. Therefore all open green spaces should
remain protected.
Brazley Centre (117SC): The buildings included on the plans for this land
are used by vulnerable people from Horwich and Bolton. Whoever makes
these decisions needs to go out and look at these facilities and talk to the
people who use them, and how such plans would affect their lives. Its no
good saying these facilities would be moved somewhere else. These
plans would have a detrimental effects on health and wellbeing, mental
health, and dignity. There is plenty alternative land around that could be
used for housing that would not be so detrimental. An example would be
the land on Claypool Road which has been a dumping ground for over 30
years. This land also provides the only green aspect from the Crown in
Horwich to the Beehive.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
414
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Ken Whowell
Brazley Centre (site 117SC): This is our community centre. In 2004,
Bolton Council spent £200,000 of our money funding the community
centre extension. Now you want to hand it over to developers?
The future of the nearby Brazley Day Care Centre also gives cause for
concern. In 1998 this was our library - £131,000 of our money was spent
on converting the library to a day care centre. These are our assets - not
to be sold off, demolished or handed over to developers.
Natalie Wood
Brazley Centre (117SC): I strongly object to the selling of this land that is
currently in use and provides excellent services for the elderly and
vulnerable people.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
This proposed housing allocation
includes the stalled former
Swallowfields Hotel site and other
council owned buildings. Development
for housing would bring about positive
improvements to the site. The loss of
community facilities would need to be
mitigated through the provision of new
or improved facilities nearby.
The boundary of the proposed
allocation was based on the red-edge
planning application boundary. This
included unintentionally the area
occupied at that time by the lodge area
designated as an SBI. It was not
intended that this area would be
developed at that time as part of the
planning permission. While the lodge
has been drained the SBI remains
designated and it is therefore relevant
to adjust the boundary to reflect the
current planning situation.
Two Towns Area Forum: Brazley Centre (site 117SC): Possible
community run library?
Teresa Hughes
Bolton Council
GMEU
Temple Road (39sc): This allocation encompasses the majority of
Temple Road Lodge SBI. GMEU object to this allocation on the grounds
that the drain down of the reservoir was for a temporary period and that
the submitted ecological reports do not allow for consideration of the
condition of the site should it be reinstated to open water. GMEU
recognises that following a traumatic event, either natural or man-made,
SBIs should be given a sufficient period of time before any Review in
order that intervention or natural recolonisation can be accommodated
and allow the habitats to stabilise/regenerate. The current status of this
SBI is still extant and insufficient time has elapsed in order to assess
whether there will be any recovery of the wetland habitats.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
415
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Simon
Pemberton
JASP Planning
Consultancy LTD
Land at Temple Road (39SC): This is an allocation we support in
principle; however, we note there is conflict with the Site of Biological
Importance (SBI) designation. We have undertaken an ecological
assessment of the SBI and consider that only a part of this site is worthy
of such designation. A copy of this assessment is provided.
On the basis of this assessment it is considered that the boundary of the
housing allocation and the SBI should be reviewed as per the attached
plan. We would strongly object to the proposed document if the allocation
was to be omitted in future versions of the plan.
On the basis of the
previous outline planning permission, the proposed allocation in the
emerging DPD, and the assessment of the site in the attached
documents, my client intends to submit an application for the
development of that part of the site.
The boundary of the proposed
allocation was based on the red-edge
planning application boundary. This
included unintentionally the area
occupied at that time by the lodge area
designated as an SBI. It was not
intended that this area would be
developed at that time as part of the
planning permission. While the lodge
has been drained the SBI remains
designated and it is therefore relevant
to adjust the boundary to reflect the
current planning situation.
Elizabeth
Shepherd
Bolton Friends of the
Earth
Land at Temple Road (39SC): This site is part of the wildlife corridor
along Dean Brook and as such should be protected under Core Strategy
policy CG2.
This site has planning permission and
is under-development. The wildlife
corridors in the vicinity are largely tied
to the river corridors and will have
been taken into account at the
planning application stage. However it
is proposed to amend the site
boundary to exclude the site of the
lodge, which is a site of biological
importance
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
416
Name
David Kirk
Andrew Grundy
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
The Laurels, Markland Hill (44SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Thistleton Road, 36SC: I am TOTALLY AGAINST these plans so I would
be prepared to take appropriate action, involving contacting my solicitor if
necessary. I am sure other residents feel the same as I have spoken to
several of my neighbours and they totally agree.
I moved into this
property because of the space and views at the back. If these plans go
ahead, they will block the view that I have and my property will be
overlooked with a lot less privacy. Furthermore, I have strong concerns
about how much noise and inconvenience the building of these
properties will cause. Why have the landowners, Affinity Sutton, been
silent about these plans? I have been a tenant of this area for a total of
16+ years and Affinity Sutton have always said they are against building
on spare land and that they prefer open spaces and that is why the
houses are not fenced off at the front. The building of more properties on
the spare land at the back goes against these statements and I would be
very angry if Affinity Sutton agreed with the council's plans of the building
of these properties.
I hope to receive a reply from you in the near future, confirming that the
The future of this site is already firmly
established through planning
permission and the development of
this site is almost complete.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
417
The site is currently undeliverable as it
is partly used as garages and partly
used as a garden.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
plans have been scrapped and that there will be no properties built on
the tenant garage site at the back of my property.
Sarah Paton
Yvonne Scott
Bolton Council
Affinity Sutton
As far as we are aware, we only own the garage site which we let to
residents of our estate. I think this site could be identified for
development within 10-15 years but we would always need to consult
with and consider the views of our residents and the tenants of the
garages. I do not currently see any reason to object in principle to the
rest of the site being developed but we would need to consider specific
plans and reflect the residents’ views on this to some extent. Sorry, we
don’t know who owns the site fronting Wigan Road.
Thistleton Road, 36SC: Why has the owner, Affinity Sutton, been silent
about this? Also what do you plan on building and when? I am not very
happy about these plans. I have lived here for over three years. It is a
quiet and clean estate with lovely neighbours. My house, which will
directly face this construction site, has a lovely view, which for one I don.t
want to lose.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
418
The site is currently undeliverable as it
is partly used as garages and partly
used as a garden.
The site is currently undeliverable as it
is partly used as garages and partly
used as a garden.
Name
Vivien Tavner on
b/h Mr & Mrs
Knott
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
I am emailing on behalf of my parents who live at 19 Thistleton Road,
Bolton and also have a garage at the above site at the bottom of
Thistleton Road and who wish to lodge an objection to the plan to build
on the Thistleton Road/Addington Road Tenant Garage Site. Until a
neighbour called to see them yesterday they were totally unaware of any
proposed development affecting their street or garage. The lack of
communication on behalf of Affinity Sutton has, in my opinion, been
shoddy to say the least. My parents have been tenants at 19 Thistleton
Road since 1969 and have had a garage for at least 15 years. Loss of
the garage facility would be a big blow and would result in more cars
than ever being left on the street. The refuse collection vehicles already
struggle with the number of cars parked to get up and down the cul de
sac and this can only be made worse if the garages are demolished and
more cars are parked on the street. Unfortunately my Mum was taken ill
late at night in November 2010 and the ambulance could not get up the
cul de sac to turn around because of parked cars and had to reverse
back down from half way up. This type of situation can only arise more
frequently if cars currently garaged are to be parked on the street. My
parents therefore wish to say that IF the planning permission is granted
and the garages are demolished then as part of that permission Affinity
Sutton, or whoever is given permission, should be made to either widen
the road to ensure vehicles can be safely parked outside tenants
properties without causing a blockage or ideally, private parking bays
should be provided on the grass in front of the houses to clear the road
for emergency and other vehicles which require unobstructed access.
The site is currently undeliverable as it
is partly used as garages and partly
used as a garden.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
419
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Rebecca
Sowerbutts
John Rose Associates on
b/h of Mr Smyth
JRA would like to put forward a new site, not previously included within
the LDF, to be considered for its allocation within the Allocations DPD.
The site is located on Tottington Road, Bolton and is currently allocated
as Green Belt land and is within a Conservation Area.
The release of this land from the
Green Belt would be contrary to the
Core Strategy and the National
Planning Policy Framework. The Core
Strategy does not identify the need to
develop any housing in the Green Belt,
either in this location or any other.
JRA wish to promote the site for either its removal from the Green Belt
and allocation for Affordable Housing, or the allocation of the site for
Affordable Housing as an exception site within the Green Belt.
The site is located immediately adjoining the Urban Area boundary. It is
within a 5 minute walk of Harwood Lee where there is a large
supermarket and a number of local shops, services, public houses and
primary schools. In addition, Bolton town centre is just (approximately)
4.8km from the site, which provides a wide range of services and
facilities, including schools, hospitals, shops etc. The site is therefore
very sustainably located.
It is considered that the proposed development of the site would benefit
the local community and Bolton as a whole, by meeting the housing
needs of local people and assisting the LPA to meet their Vision:
“Our vision for Bolton in 2017 is for it to be a place where everyone has
an improved quality of life and the confidence to achieve their ambitions”.
It is acknowledged that the LPA does have a five year housing land
supply however, it is important to note that due to the current economic
climate, not all of these sites may be built out and therefore the LPA
should continue to review and maintain this supply. In addition,
according to the Housing Needs and Market Assessment (2011) there is
an annual shortfall of 377 affordable dwellings in Bolton, furthermore this
Assessment highlighted a significant undersupply of bungalows, resulting
from an increasing elderly population.
Furthermore, the 2011 Annual Monitoring Report states that just 326 net
additional dwellings were completed during 2011, this is 368 less than
the Core Strategy annual target, furthermore just 139 affordable homes
were completed as oppose to the Core Strategy target of 243 per annum.
This demonstrates that due to the current economic climate, although the
LPA appear to be able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply
this does not mean these sites can and will deliver. It is therefore
important that the LPA continuously review the five year supply and in
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
420
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
light of the draft National Planning Policy Framework ensure a 20%
additional supply.
Please note that additional supporting information, in the form of a report
and indicative site layout plan will follow next week, as confirmed with
Melanie Craven at the Council.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
421
Council response
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Victory Road, Kearsley (78SC): I don't object in principle to any building
on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
422
Name
David Kirk
Mariana
MacDowall
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Waggon Road, Breightmet (66SC): I don't object in principle to any
building on brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted
into a community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger
generations so that they can either become involved in their own self
build housing scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton
that continues to provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it
was established with rents in the very very affordable category giving
them the confidence and powers to take control of their own future and
allowing the buildings be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below
so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can
easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these
possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the home the
home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that the
industry already has, and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build
4200 homes across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would
cost in the region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is
the very least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too
try to make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a
world where every town needs real examples of low carbon housing.
Lets help them, lets be the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to
really pull together and deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide
local jobs and attract the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is
so desperately needed in the town.
Waggon Road, Breightmet (site 66sc): Housing will greatly reduce local
access to green areas. The green lawn on the slope down Winchester
Way in used a lot, and is a breathing space (plus provides a spectacular
view of Bolton, and of weather patterns). There are many vacant
residences in the area - why not improve the stock of current residences,
instead of building new ones? I am also concerned about run off from the
area, if it is turned into residential - Winchester Way is already in poor
condition, if more rainwater is made to go down over the road, it will
deteriorate faster.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
The boundary has been amended to
retain existing trees which contribute to
the amenity of the area.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
423
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows some
development on informal greenspaces
in the urban area, provided that it
allows for the improvement of
remaining green spaces and helps to
meet the strategic objectives for
housing. Any development of the site
should be mitigated through
improvements to nearby public spaces.
The boundary has been amended to
retain existing trees which contribute to
the amenity of the area.
Name
David Kirk
Bolton Council
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Winster Drive (67SC): I don't object in principle to any building on
brownfield sites, but I do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a
community land trust in perpetuity for the towns younger generations so
that they can either become involved in their own self build housing
scheme similar to the Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to
provide affordable housing for families 20 years after it was established
with rents in the very very affordable category giving them the confidence
and powers to take control of their own future and allowing the buildings
be built to code 5-6 or passiv haus standard below so the homes are
virtually free to run and climate friendly and that can easily be achieved
in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds to these possibilities and
separating the land value from the cost of the home the home can be
built using existing cavity wall building skills that the industry already has,
and provide much needed low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes across
the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the region of
£90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very least the
towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to make a life
for themselves in a system they never designed in a world where every
town needs real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help them, lets be
the pioneers and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and
deliver the 4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract
the kind of skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately
needed in the town.
The site has value as open space, and
is difficult to develop because of the
topography.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
424
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Paul Sedgwick
Sedgwick Associates
Housing Allocations - General
There has to be very considerable concern relating to the delivery of
sufficient new dwellings to meet the core strategy requirement of 694
additional dwellings a year. Since 2004, when 426 dwellings were
completed, around half of all new dwellings were apartments. The
completion of new houses has typically been 500 pa for the period from
2004 – 2008 falling to less than 200pa through 2010 and 2011.
It is widely recognised that the apartment market is in steep decline and
very few are now included in housing developments, the emphasis now
being on family housing. This situation is not expected to change
significantly in the short term, and there can be no confidence that the
apartment market will return to Bolton.
Whilst this change in the market has been evolving, also the public
funding for new housing has also steeply declined, making the delivery of
affordable housing more dependent on the private sector and
undermining the council’s Transforming Estates initiative. Policy SC1
places a strong reliance on the Transforming Estates (TE) Programme.
However, research undertaken recently by this practice has revealed that
the Council has no certainty as to the sites which will form part
of the TE programme or how many dwellings can be achieved as a result
of the programme.
The Draft Allocations Plan does not appear to identify specific TE sites
either. In the absence of any real programme for the delivery of TE sites
the Council must look to allocate deliverable sites.
With a more restrained housing market it has become apparent that
house completion rates to be expected from each site have declined.
Now even good sites selling dwellings that are attractive to the market
rarely complete above 20 dwellings a year – many are running below this
total. Whilst overall completions can be increased by two or more
developers operating on a large site, there remain market considerations
that control the overall level of completions. We
note that the LPA expects 1600 dwellings from the Horwich Loco Works
in the plan period.
This development has not yet started and will not for many months if not
several years. It will therefore need to complete well over 100 dwellings a
year if it is to fully contribute to the Plan’s requirements. It is therefore
most unlikely that it will fully deliver in that timescale and the shortfall is
likely to be very significant. It is also considered that the Loco Works site
is not deliverable at present (when assessed against the SHLAA Practice
Guidance) and as such, should
Comments noted. The Allocations
Plan has identified a range of
deliverable sites to meet requirements
over the plan period to 2026 on both
previously developed and greenfield
sites. This should provide flexibility for
developers to take up sites in a variety
of housing markets and locations.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
425
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
not be relied upon to provide any dwellings over the next 5 years.
Additionally, the availability of the Horwich Loco Works site and the
strong marketing that will be employed to sell its dwellings will depress
completions on other sites generally in West Bolton.
Currently, completion rates are running at about half of the required level,
stacking up a deficit of completions that will need to be made up in the
plan period, and sooner in it rather than later.
Continuing failure to meet requirements will put a huge and increasing
pressure on the LPA to deliver sites to meet identified housing need. In
other words, the council is likely to lose control over which sites get
planning permission especially if draft national planning policy framework
is approved in anything like its draft form, with a presumption in favour of
development where development plans fail to deliver a 5 year supply of
housing.
The challenge for Bolton, to be met though the allocations DPD, is to
deliver the required number of new dwellings from primarily private
sector family housing sites. The current deficit in current completion rates
shows clearly that there needs to be a greater choice of relatively small
sites capable of delivering family houses in areas where people wish to
live. This is generally not going to be in the poorer urban areas or in town
centres, but in suburban areas and on the urban periphery. Draw your
attention to sites at Station Road, Blackrod and Nuffield House Halliwell
as examples of sites which are and will develop quickly because they are
in the right location and have a mix of dwellings that are attractive to
today’s market.
The allocation of such sites (and the grant of planning permission for
others that come forward) which can develop in the present market is
essential if the build-up of a large completions deficit in the short term is
to be avoided.
It is relevant (but often overlooked) that housebuilding has a strong
stimulus to the local economy. It creates local jobs and investment during
the construction stage which has direct
and multiplier effect on the borough’s economy (described in HMGs
‘Planning for Growth’).
Once the development is complete, there is a continuing spend from the
future occupiers, a significant proportion of which will go to local shops
and services. To fail to maximise new housing development required by
the core strategy is therefore to miss important opportunities contributing
to a ‘Prosperous Bolton’ as well as to a ‘Strong and Confident Bolton’
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
426
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Graham Bee
The Emerson Group
Paragraph 2.6 mentions that the ‘Core Strategy’s approach is for new
housing development to be developed across the whole of the urban
area of the borough, and so there is unlikely to be increased pressure on
spaces for education provision in one particular area, due to the
construction of new dwellings. The exception to this is for the strategic
site at Horwich Loco Works which is predicted to require a new 2-form
entry primary school’. At the end of this sentence add, ‘although such
requirement will be fully considered and determined at the time of any
planning application for development of the site’.
It would appear that Horwich is in line to receive a high proportion of
Bolton's future residential development, going off the anticipated yields,
particularly when taking into account Horwich Loco Works. I do feel that
this seems excessively weighted in comparison to the rest of the
Borough. Should this proposed level of development take place then
improvements to the local infrastructure would be essential given the
cumulative impact.
The adoption of the Supplementary
Planning Document for the Loco
Works already addresses a more
detailed approach to the provision of
education.
Elizabeth
Broderick
Ann Kolodziejski
Bolton Council
The housing policy should add something around the issue of Low
Impact Developments (A low impact development is one that, through its
low negative environmental impact,
either enhances or does not significantly diminish environmental quality”
Fairlie, 1996,)
If sustainable development is to occur, it will require a shift in thinking
about how we currently live. While low impact developments are not
common in the UK, forward thinking planning policies could ensure that
people have access to a wider range of really sustainable buildings in the
future.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
427
It is worth noting that while proposed
sites within Horwich and Blackrod
amount for approximately 27% of the
possible housing supply, development
is over a very long time period.
Implications of Horwich Locoworks for
infrastructure are being fully
considered.
Housing development is already be
subject to sustainable design and
construction policy CG1.. This does
encourage developers to progress
developments at least in line with
national targets for environmental
performance. Low impact
developments are unlikely to play a
significant part in future housing
provision so there is limited merit in
including reference to it.
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Boyd Lee
Transition Town Bolton
1. We object to all policies relating to building on brownfield sites unless
the town really is prepared to secure the towns 35% of affordable
housing land in a more meaningful way that can secure the kind of future
proof jobs as described below.
2. We object to all policies that allocate green sites becoming housing for
the reasons described further below.
The Allocations Plan sets as a priority
the use of previously developed land in
appropriate locations in line with the
adopted Core Strategy. While seeking
35% affordable provision this can only
be guaranteed where development is
viable. The mechanism for
development and issues of community
land trusts are not relevant in the
Allocations Plan which is primarily
about establishing the future use of
land not its ownership and developer
mechanisms.
Inner Bolton (10SC,11SC,21SC,23SC,24SC,26SC,27SC,31SC,36SC)
North Bolton (49SC,55SC,)
West Bolton (41SC,42SC,44SC,48SC),
Breightmet
(57SC,59SC,61SC,62SC,65SC,66SC,67SC,68SC,70SC,71SC)
Little Lever and Kearsley (74SC,75SC,77SC,78SC,83SC,85SC,86SC,
Farnworth (91SC,92SC,93SC,94SC)
Westhoughton (107SC,109SC,111SC - Edge Farm - this is a 9 acre
farm! How sad if we deny future generations the ability to grow here)
Horwich and Blackrod (116SC,119SC,121SC,122SC,124SC,125SC,)
Whilst Transition Town don't object to any building on brownfield sites we
do object until 35% of the land is gifted into a community land trust in
perpetuity for the towns younger generations so that they can either
become involved in their own self build housing scheme similar to the
Sensible Housing Coop in Bolton that continues to provide affordable
housing for families 20 years after it was established with rents in the
very very affordable category giving them the confidence and powers to
take control of their own future and allowing the buildings be built to code
5-6 or passiv so the homes are virtually free to run and climate friendly
that can easily be achieved in Bolton. By opening your hearts and minds
to these possibilities and separating the land value from the cost of the
home the home can be built using existing cavity wall building skills that
the industry already has, provide low carbon jobs to build 4200 homes
across the Borough at a cheap price and the homes would cost in the
region of £90-140 a year to keep warm. This in our opinion is the very
least the towns next generation of families deserve as they too try to
make a life for themselves in a system they never designed in a world
where every town need real examples of low carbon housing. Lets help
them and lets take this opportunity to really pull together and deliver the
4200 homes to this standard, provide local jobs and attract the kind of
skills and meaningful employment that is so desperately needed in the
town.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
428
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
We encourage the governments development partners experts, lawyers
and investment bankers to look past the age of perpetual growth that
gave you all everlasting development sites and endless supply chains
and towards a future that you'd like your children and their grandchildren
to thank you for as you too reach an age where you rely on their good
generosity knowing that these first steps and local skills could in the next
14 years be something you benefit from as you retire into similar
accommodation that is already proven to work as we all transition into a
more expensive oil and gas future. By doing this TTBolton believe that
the need to burn fossil fuels will reduce and the towns income will not
rely as heavily on imported fuels from around the globe.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
429
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Phillip Rothwell
Peel Investments (North)
Limited
Additional Proposed Sites
3.1 Peel has interests in a number of other sites which are not identified
in the
Draft DPD but which we consider should be brought into the DPD for the
Publication Version. Most of these sites are within the Green Belt, with
one
exception at Dixon Green Reservoir.
3.2 It is important that the Council plans flexibly by allocating a range of
sites to
meet identified needs. It is considered that in terms of both housing and
industrial/warehousing land, the proposed allocations are likely to fall
short, or are at best marginal, in terms of their ability to provide the
Borough’s development requirements. In particular, there is a heavy
reliance on certain sources of supply that are constrained in their ability
to contribute. Constraints exist in a number of forms, including wider
economic challenges, a shortage of finance and/or demand for certain
types of development product, the ability of the development/construction
sector to deliver and a range of costly site issues such as remediation or
infrastructure works.
3.3 It is important that the land supply is both suitable and viable. The
sites set
out below are all considered to be suitable for the identified uses.
Importantly, the sites are all likely to be viable and able to bear
appropriate infrastructure planning costs (including affordable housing). It
is therefore considered that the Council should allocate additional land
through the Allocation Plan. Peel will present further evidence in relation
to the above, at Publication stage.
3.4 Peel would also be pleased to provide further site information in
relation to any of the sites below, for example conceptual plans and/or
technical analysis, to support potential inclusions within the Plan.
Peel Investments (North) Limited
9
Hulton Park and adjoining land to the west 3.5 This site is the Listed
Historic Parkland at Hulton, which extends to over 250 hectares. We
would also like land to the immediate west of the Park to be considered
as part of the approach set out below, as shown in the plan at Appendix
1.
3.6 The Park’s main historic asset, Hulton Hall, was demolished in 1958
and unlike many historic parklands there is no heritage asset that can
promote
In the case of Hulton Park, the Draft
Allocation Plan's Green Belt policies
and the Core Strategy's policies on
heritage, wildlife and for West Bolton,
provide a robust and sufficient
planning policy context. There is
insufficient evidence put forward to
justify a specific policy on Hulton Park,
and without this such a policy would
risk undermining both national and
local policies, and give insufficient
certainty.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
430
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
access to the park or indeed provide a revenue that will sustain its
upkeep and day to day management. Hulton Park is a potential major
asset to the area but is underused and largely inaccessible at present.
3.7 As the Council is aware, following its acquisition of the Hulton Park
estate in 2010, Peel has sought to attend to a number of management
and maintenance issues on the site and has commenced the early
stages of work towards a future vision of sustainable investment, to
facilitate restoration and wider community and economic benefit. This
work is ongoing at present and we expect to be in a position to engage
the Council and the local community in this over the coming months.
3.8 The Core Strategy recognises Hulton Park as an important asset to
the Borough. Specifically:
· Policy OA4 which deals with West Bolton and states that the Council
and its partners will conserve and enhance the character of the existing
physical environment, especially the Conservation Areas at Deane and
Chorley New Road, and the historic registered Hulton Park;
· Policy CG3 which states that the Council and its partners will conserve
and enhance the heritage significance of heritage assets and heritage
areas, recognising the importance of sites, areas and buildings of
archaeological, historic, cultural and architectural interest and their
settings.
Peel Investments (North) Limited
10
3.9 Previous submissions to the Call for Sites have sought to promote a
widening of potential uses across the site, which may ‘enable’ and
secure the future conservation of the Listed Parkland, ideally through a
specific policy within the DPD dealing with the Parkland itself. We would
like to reiterate this request, specifically that the Council seeks to work
jointly with Peel over the coming months to capture a shared ambition for
the Hulton Park in a bespoke policy within the DPD.
3.10 We would like such a policy to recognise the significant potential of
the Park and capture the following principles:
· The need for a Park restoration programme, to be informed by an
assessment of heritage significance in accordance with national policy;
· The need for future investment in the Park to be informed by a viable
business case that will secure the restoration and long term
stewardship of the Park;
· The need for future investment to be of significant benefit to the local
community, in particular in terms of job creation and appropriate public
access;
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
431
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
· An outline of what uses may be considered appropriate, with a likely
focus on leisure/recreation with supporting development;
· Confirmation that the site is intended to remain within the Green Belt,
that any proposals will need to be considered against national Green
Belt policy (including the purposes of the Green Belt) and that any harm
deemed to be caused by ‘inappropriate development’ would need to be
justified by ‘very special circumstances’;
· The intention for a group to be established between the site owners,
the local community, the Council, English Heritage and other interested
parties as a means of securing stakeholder engagement.
Peel Investments (North) Limited
11
3.11 We consider that such an approach would be consistent with
current national Green Belt and heritage policy (PPG2 and PPS5) and
the Draft National Planning Policy Framework.
Bolton Council
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
432
Council response
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum: With regard to the need for
new housing have you looked at how many empty properties there are
already?
The issue of vacancies was
considered through the underlying
housing requirements set within the
Regional Spatial Strategy. There will
always be vacant properties for a
number of reasons including a
mismatch between types of property
and those seeking them, condition and
for the normal operation of the housing
market. No specific account of
vacancies within a local area has been
taken into account.
The Allocations Plan is not specific
about the actual type of affordable
housing to be provided on a specific
site. However the Core Strategy sets
out in policy SC1 overall requirements
based on number of bedrooms and a
breakdown of affordable housing into
75% social and 25% intermediate
housing. At the planning application
stage specific needs within an area are
identified when negotiating with private
developers for affordable provision.
Some of the proposed housing
allocations could be described as
being informal open space but none
contain football pitches or children's
play areas.
It is accepted that the development of
housing on this site will result in the
loss of recreational open space. This
loss will have to be mitigated by
improvement to nearby public
recreational space. Future protection
of the wooded clough to the west of
the site and existing trees on the
Cedar Avenue boundary will also need
to be secured.
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum: What type of housing makes
up the proposed affordable housing?
Little Lever and Darcy Lever Area Forum: Would the proposed housing
allocations in Darcy Lever result in loss of recreational land?
Tim Aston
Bolton Council
Cedar Avenue (116SC): I think local people need this oasis of green
space to walk dogs on, of kids to play and runners to run around. Old
and infirm people would have great difficulty in getting to other areas for
recreation and enjoyment of green space.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
433
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Helen Ireland
Darcy Lever Residents
Association
Gorses Road, Breightmet (85SC): Application for development on this
portion of land has been rejected four times by our Local Planning
Committee, and three times by the Inspectorate. There are a variety of
problems with the site including drainage.
Helen Ireland
Darcy Lever Residents
Association
Long Lane/Radcliffe Road (87SC): The planning application was rejected
by the Local Authority.
This railway cutting is previously
developed land land which has been
subject to some natural regeneration
since closure of the railway many
years ago. Development for housing
would bring this land back into
productive use and form a logical
extension to nearby housing, although
the relationship with Leverhulme Park
will require careful design. Although
the most recent appeal was dismissed
this was solely on the basis of impact
on character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
This railway cutting is previously
developed land which has been
subject to some natural regeneration
since closure of the railway many
years ago. Development for housing
would bring this land back into
productive use and form a logical
extension to nearby housing, although
the relationship with Leverhulme Park
will require careful design. Although
the most recent appeal was dismissed
this was solely on the basis of impact
on character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
Core Strategy policy CG1 allows
development on informal greenspace
within the urban area provided it allows
for improvements of remaining
greenspace and helps meet strategic
housing objectives. This loss should
be mitigated through improvements to
other public space nearby and new
housing taking into account the
character of the existing housing.
Margaret Smith
Bolton Council
Manchester Road (125SC): 1. This is a safe playing field for all children.
2. There is a covenant on this land which was made between Blackrod
U.D.C. and Lancashire C.C. and Governmental sources - Namely
George VI Playing Fields Association.
Appendix 10 Comments on the Draft Plan + council’s responses
434
Name
Organisation
Comment Summary
Council response
Helen Ireland
Darcy Lever Residents
Association
Radcliffe Road, Breightmet (74SC): Rejected at the time plans were
passed, as Green Belt. we were informed that this land would not be built
on and believe this is on record.
This site is not Green Belt and is
classed as urban area. It consists of a
rough field which is now surrounded by
modern housing development and is of
little amenity value. There may be
scope to retain the hedgerow
alongside Radcliffe Road.
Helen Ireland
Darcy Lever Residents
Association
Radcliffe Road, Breightmet (75SC): Any house owners living in the area
will have great difficulty accessing Radcliffe Road with their
accompanying vehicles, and will cause further stressful hazards to other
road users. We object to the closing up of this valuable open space.
The