Bury moves to withdraw Green Belt site from joint plan
Efforts are underway to preserve 158 acres at Walshaw, south of Tottington, that are earmarked for redevelopment into 1,250 homes under the emerging Places for Everyone plan.
Bury Council wants to remove the Green Belt site, located around Stables Country Club and east of High Street, from PfE following the reassessment of the authority’s housing supply position.
An updated look into Bury Council’s housing pipeline has found that the authority could deliver 9,683 homes during the next 15 years.
This is an increase of more than 1,000 homes compared to earlier estimates.
The additional homes identified follow the creation of the new Bury town centre masterplan and Radcliffe Strategic Regeneration Framework, and the council’s acquisition of the Mill Gate shopping centre – all of which have boosted the number of deliverable homes in urban locations.
As a result, Bury Council claims there is scope to preserve one of the sites earmarked for release from the Green Belt for housing.
The three sites considered for removal from PfE were:
- Elton Reservoir – 313 acres capable of accommodating 3,500 homes
- Simister/Bowlee – 182 acres capable of accommodating 1,350 homes
- Walshaw – 158 acres capable of accommodating 1,250 homes.
Having analysed the three sites, the council concluded that “the benefits that would arise from the Walshaw site are not considered to be as strategically significant as the other two large sites proposed in the more sustainable part of the borough”.
Bury’s cabinet will meet next week to approve the request for the Walshaw allocation to be removed from the draft Places for Everyone, which will undergo a government review beginning in November.
If approved by Bury’s cabinet, the request for Walshaw to be withdrawn from the plan would be discussed by the inspectors in January.
The removal of the Walshaw site would reduce Bury’s housing supply by 1,250 units, giving a total supply of 8,433 over the plan period and a 17% buffer on what is actually required to be delivered.
Good news for Walshaw but I personally hope the problem will not be moved to another of the 6 borough towns ??
By Brian
Build on brown land
By Roger Dunkley I
The thing that comes to mind when you see some councils man-mark their housing allocation is they really aren’t interested in housing abundance, just the politically palatable minimum.
By Rich X
Elton Reservoir should be removed from houses being built on and around it, because dog walkers, walkers and horse riders use it a lot.
By Chris
Remove Elton Resevoir and protect the wild life
By Carl Hayes
Also the congestion the road into Bury is almost to capacity at peak hours
By Carl Hayes
Didn’t realise you could make changes after submission. Hopefully Labour in Oldham will put Woodhouses back in. Sensible place to build and a good chance to show the people of Failsworth that there are consequences associated with electing clueless racists from the Failsworth Independents!
By Denis Brockridge
Fantastic news for the Walshaw area This will bring pleasure to hundreds of residents.
By Anonymous
No homes for young families then, so a few NIMBYs can walk their dogs. The way these people talk, you’d think they lived overlooking The Cuillin Hills.
By Elephant
Elephant, majority of local residents = Nimbys? Unless you’re from round the area I suggest you find something you are qualified to talk about. These areas are the lungs of the town and ones which are regulaly used by all walks of life.
Great decision and hopefully the local groups can keep the pressure on and get Elton Res removed althiugh I fear this one is nailed on.
By PS
So a few Nimby’s can walk their dogs? An unworthy comment. You sir are no Elephant!
By Old Tusker
Isn’t Elton reservoir getting a Metrolink station?
By Rich X
Two thoughts/questions on this;
1. Let’s be under no illusion. The removal of the Walshaw site from the #PlacesForEveryone plan was a blatant political campaigning promise used in the last local election to secure Labour Cllr seats. So, my guess is that this will be passed. That said, it’s great if the land does get removed from the PfE plan.👍
2. Taken there is a significant increase in land supply since the #PlacesForEveryone plan was submitted to Govt in Feb 22, I would like hear valid and coherent reasons why both the housing plans for Elton Res and Simister under PfE, are NOT also being recommended for removal from #PlacesForEveryone plan?
By Philip Smith-Lawrence
So this is merely a PR stunt by 2 Labour councillors to get votes to protect themselves. These 2 ironically voted for PfE ! Seems like they want to feed Radcliffe and Simister to the Concrete Lions! If the houses are to be build perhaps all wards in the borough take equal amounts?
By Alan Bayfield
Purely a political move, nothing more, Bury Labour Council have no regard for green space, just look at how the specific areas were chosen. Coincidence how the Labour candidate taking the credit for removing Walshaw voted to concrete it over in the PfE and isnt her husband on the planning committee. Nice move….yet again this council think they can do the dirty on Radcliffe to win votes in Bury. Elton and Simister need romoving and get a local plan in place but this time do it properly, an even share throughout the 6 boroughs, including Ramsbottom
By Angela Shaw
It is absolutely ridiculous that you want to build houses on our greenbelt in walshaw. The effects of this will be disastrous for them and us living near by. We are unable to get a face-to-face appointment at our doctors surgery so this would definitely not help. Of course it will increase cars on the road creating more carbon emissions. Not to mention excess traffic in a morning and evening. More children will need placing in schools, what have you put in place with our schools for that to happen? Going into Bury Town Centre on a regular basis it appears that we have now got many more people living in our Town. I’m assuming you have managed to find houses for all these people where have these houses come from? You need to definitely reconsider your plan to build on our lovely greenbelt.
By Janice Taylor
Great news – it makes no sense at any level. I am all for leaving Walshaw alone.
By Green4All
Fantastic News!!! Lets hope it gets approved.
By BrillNews
I applaud any protection of the greenbelt. However, the figures have been flawed all along, so how Bury Council can now, after the plan has been submitted, decide the houses are not required after all is baffling!
By JH
Great news a good start to saving the greenbelt
By Colin Heaton
This isn’t great news for young families waiting desperately for their forever homes to be built.
So much faff for so many years…Just make a decision and get on with it!
By JD
Silly NIMBY’s that will do everything to continue the generational problem of the housing shortage. So what if your kids cant afford a house, you’re set. So what if young families cant afford good living conditions, you’re set. So what if young people and those who are looking to move out of the city have no where to go, and large private landlords doing BTR schemes slowly drive everyone to renting, you’re set. Disgusting selfish attitudes by those who use words like “green lungs” to try and justify “I don’t want” just say it how it is and stop pretending to have the moral high ground.
By Truthtalker
Where do people think houses should be built ? You cant argue that we need more of them, that is simple fact. Brownfield city regen is suitable for some, but its no place to raise a family.
You say “NOT IN MY BACK YARD” but you know it has to be in someones back yard…Lets be real about this, none of you care one jot about environment, greenery, healthcare, roads, etc…not a scrap. You just care about protecting your own interests.
By MrReal
The removal of the Waltham site from the PFE scheme is fantastic news. This will preserve the beautiful area of Tottington & Walshaw.
By Philip Musson
@Truthtalker…… truthtalker??? Really? Funnily enough now this part has been pulled, Bury Council have now identified 4 locations of ADDITIONAL BROWNFIELD that previously couldnt be built on, that now can magically can be built on!!!!!!! So guess what, Greenbelt that is locally used is saved, and brownfield land not used can be built on!!!!!! Hey presto, as if by magic!!!!!
By PS