A SADDLEWORTH pub faces having to tear down a play area after planning permission was refused.
That is despite 75 of the 78 people who commented supporting The Roebuck Inn, on Brighton Road in Strinesdale.
The business sought retrospective permission from Oldham Council after the beer garden and play area was created last summer in a bid to ‘meet increased demand from customers.’
But objectors believed the owners ran roughshod over the planning regulations and their additions were not in keeping with the area.
A comment from people identifying themselves as Wendy and Paul Daniel, of Green Lane, stated: “We have had to deal with the noise from the children and adults. We have lost our privacy when wanting to sit outside.
“Children having no supervision, lights on until 10.30pm – these were not there before. Music speakers on the wall, not there before.
“Horses go up and down this Lane all the time and could be easily spooked, the children throw the shingle into the road.
“Parking to the front of the pub on the white lines, so people struggle to pull out from Green Lane. Accident waiting to happen.
“There was no conversing with us as neighbours as they will do what they want. This is a commercial property not a residential garden. It is not in keeping with the area.”
Others agreed about the lack of consultation, stating: “The Roebuck needs to consider the locals that are affected by this structure and the fact they failed to apply for planning before construction.
“They cannot expect the locals to just go along with construction first and compliance after and beggar the community and their privacy and enjoyment.”
However, the overwhelming majority of comments were in favour, with several speaking of how it is a community asset.
One person said: “The outside seating was a godsend to local residents during recent years’ lockdowns.”
Others added: “This wonderful space can NOT be forced to be removed. It’s a great addition to a lovely place and kids love the play area.”
Oldham Council, though, disagreed with the application made by Susan Howarth and it must now be removed.
It stated: “The proposed development is situated within an area of land which forms part of the designated Green Belt.
“The proposal is for an extension to the beer garden and the erection of play equipment, siting of picnic benches and outdoor lighting, which represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and would affect the openness of the Green Belt.
“It has not been demonstrated that the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by any other considerations.”
Good decision. All the people who commented in favour of the monstrosity are not locals, but people who live far enough away that they need to drive there. You wouldn’t want this on your doorstep. I’m not local but have seen the impact this has had on those neighbouring the pub and it must have been awful in sunny weather. The landlords are clearly selfish people who are not neighbourly. If they thought they could get away with doing this and then applying retrospectively it shows you what type of people they are. Do not give these people your custom as they don’t deserve it. There are plenty more country pubs in the area that offer excellent food and are caring about their neighbours – the Old Original for one is a fantastic pub and the landlord is very thoughtful about his neighbours.
Let’s hope they tear down this over sized bear garden pronto and give their neighbours back their peace.
Been going in this pub for 40 years and can assure you that the owners are some of the nicest people you good meet. I live in Failswoth so don’t go in on regular basis only for the odd meal but I don’t think they deserve this character assignation from you.
Do they deserve character assassination though? Not sure what assignation is?
As you point out you’re, “not a local,” if you were you’d realize what a complete load of nonsense you’ve just written.
What do people expect when they buy a house next to a popular public house.
Perhaps JP should visit with their children and enjoy the safe environment that Mark and Sue have created. It’s a case of not on my doorstep.
Sue has spent thousands on the pub, not just outside but making sure the pub is as environmentally friendly as you can.
They disserve better from Oldham Council who seem hell bent on ruining Oldham business.
I am sure those objecting have not been residents longer than Mark and Sue and have a obvious personal differences. Business need to look a ways to generate income from the society we live in today and I also appreciate there could be improvements to elimate the noise say after 9.00pm , but let’s face it the garden won’t have seen much this summer.
I say good look to the Roebuck in future
I am local and am curious at the houses that find this so imposing and so offensive. There are hardly any and the ones that directly overlook were converted so clearly they got their planning permission. Maybe I should object to the fact children play on swings in the park directly on the field behind me (you can see the pub from there). Plays havoc with my sunshine G and Ts .. all that children fun and laughter ????Maybe people need to relocate to the moon. Please take the planners with you ….
Good comment.
Council has No problems in using greenbelt land if it means profit though! Love the Roebuck fabulous food generous portions great welcome and hospitality. What miserable excuses of neighbours to complain. It’s all open up there causing little nuisance to anyone and children love the play areas. You could argue that the nimbys houses are not in keeping with the area! Mainly OAP 70’s style bungalows.
I feel sorry for The Roebuck, we’ve had enjoyable meals for over 40 years, probably longer than the narrow minded nimbys that have lived there for.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
I can’t imagine what what possible grounds there might have been to object the play area, which I pass regularly and is not in the least an eye sore and also there are almost no other properties either adjacent to The Roebuck or even in the immediate vicinity.
Non of them overlook The Roebuck.
Frankly to me this stinks of petty malice and little else ?
I live nearby and can’t believe how petty some people are. The Roebuck is a local asset, much loved and frequented by residents from Moorside. Austerlands etc and who know the area well. The owners are fantastic generous people who supported people through Covid by doing take-away and when available drinks and food socially distanced. I have ridden up to the Roebuck on my horse and both have enjoyed the Roebucks hospitality, the horse grazing in the field and my husband and I enjoying civilised drinks and food in the outside tables and chairs.
If the complaint has come from people who have moved into the area during the last few years they shouldn’t have bought a property near a public house.
The owners are welcoming to cyclists, horse riders, walkers, families and couples alike – definitely the jewel in the crown for Strinesdale and I feel privileged to have this restaurant within walking distance.
I agree in Favour of the Roebuck, I wonder if those who have complained actually use this establishment? I do however find the Council Amusing in a negative way, they insight Greenbelt as their reasoning, when they are happy to give away acres of the Greenstuff for Concrete & Cash, go figure…that’s progression baby – Allegedly!!
Well put and speaking as someone else who uses those tracks and footpaths regularly, (usually at least once a week,) I agree with you completely.
This has been a complete load of cobblers.
Looks like the Roebuck have got their supporters posting on here just like they did for the planning committee. Let’s look at facts here – they carried out work without approval. They have lost their bid to get this approved afterwards. That is all there is to it.
I would like to know which council members voted for planning refusal. Don’t vote for people who make poor decisions.
I’ve discussed this with two of our local councilors and was frankly less than impressed with their responses and since the play area at The Roebuck is very similar to the one at The Grains bar Hotel which obviously has had planning permission the whole business strikes me as having been fairly arbitrary and perhaps even a bit, “dodgy.”
In any case this has been another very poor decision by OMBC.
A great decision – if you lived next to this you would agree.
There are only two bungalows, (and not actually that close, not by most people’s standards,) adjacent to the Roebuck and a converted barn opposite, (across the track to Stinesdale,) and that’s it; so no I don’t agree.
This is entirely typical of the kind of badly thought out and arguably petty decision for which OMBC are somewhat notorious and which so undermine people’s faith and confidence in OMBC and in the planning process and in our local Councillors.
Above all it demonstrates a complete and typical lack of common sense and and a failure to consider the wider needs and interests of all the the other people who benefit from this business.
I have not myself visited the Roebuck recently and I have not seen this contentious development, but the owners should have known that planning permission was required and that there might be objections. In my opinion, as a matter of principle, retrospective planning permission should never be granted. There will always be people who are trying it on.