Developer believes Greenfield homes should be built, despite refusal

A DEVELOPER believes it should be able to build four houses on green belt land in Greenfield and has questioned the reasons why they were turned down.

Oldham Council said no to Chasten Holdings Limited’s application to develop three four-bedroomed and one five-bedroomed properties on an area bordering Park Lane and Steadway.

But the firm has hit back, claiming some objections were not actually made apparent until after the planning committee’s decision.

In its case, it states: “Planning permission was refused by the Council on September 30, 2022.

“The local planning authority subsequently issued highways comments to us on March 17, 2023 and these comments are dated October 5, 2022, which is one week following the council’s decision to refuse planning permission.

Artists impression of Steadway

“It is unclear from the consultee comments whether the highways authority object or not.

“The highways authority suggests a reason for refusal if the local planning authority consider that such a refusal can be sustained at appeal.

“However, the suggested reason for refusal is different and raises separate issues to that listed in the council’s decision notice at reason for refusal.

“The local planning authority has not provided any clarity on the position, and instead suggests it was unreasonable that the applicant had not responded to comments that post-date the refusal of planning permission.”

Documents from Emery Planning, acting in behalf of Chasten Holdings, also claim objecting to the creation of a new access riad, ‘is not a sound reason for resisting the appeal proposal.’

Fears over the loss of ‘G8’ trees – mixed broadleaf species – are also countered.

When turning down the application, Oldham Council stated: “The development would impact on the openness of the green belt and represents inappropriate development within the green belt, which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Steadway footpath sign

“The harm caused to the green belt, by reason of inappropriateness and the harm caused to trees is not clearly outweighed by any other considerations and therefore very special circumstances do not exist.”

Local objectors also put their case forward, with many claiming documents originally supporting the scheme were factually incorrect.

One added: “The site would be better described as being open countryside on the very outskirts of the village.

“Its openness is a fundamental part of the character of the Boarshurst area, enjoyed not only by the residents of nearby properties (myself included) but also by the numerous people who frequent the public footpath which runs adjacent to the site at the rear of the Steadway properties.”

Steadway – Site of proposed houses

Another commented: “The planning statement refers to the designation of the site as green belt and quotes an inspector’s report from 38 years ago as a reason to question the validity of the site’s status, despite the fact the council chose to proceed with its allocation, that it remains in the green belt and that over the intervening years the pressure on the green belt and hence its importance has only increased.”

The final decision on this application will be made by His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate, which is based in Bristol.

4 Replies to “Developer believes Greenfield homes should be built, despite refusal”

  1. Leave green land for the wildlife and the people to enjoy. Wildlife and people’s mental health should be over the greed of the builders .

  2. Probably a sound decision based on the artists impression. Although, I would be in favour of a more traditional looking development that is sympathetic and in keeping with the area.

  3. I read through the planning application and its numerous comments last year. It’s clear that Oldham Council made the right decision and they deserve credit for that. It’s understandable that the developer clutches at straws like this, but their application still has no merit and contains incorrect statements about urban infill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *