Campaigners have won the battle to have plans for 43
thrown out.
Bolton Council twice rejected proposals to build the homes on land at Grizedale Close, Smithills, which would have been spread across a block of flats and eight houses.
Local residents also objected to the plans.
Developer Watson Homes appealed the decision only for the plans to be dismissed by the government’s Planning Inspectorate.
Resident and wildlife author Bridget Martin, one of the campaigners said: “The site really does need to be saved, it's really important and I’m actually not yet 100 per cent convinced it has been saved yet.”
But Bolton Council will still have to pay costs to the developers.
Cllr Roger Hayes, who represents Smithills, said: “It appears that this is because for some reason the planning department failed to tell the other side that they weren’t defending all the reasons for refusal.
“I don’t now why but I’m going to try and find out because it's very important.”
He added: “The decision not to defend some of the reasons that had been given for refusal were, in my view, wrong.”
The plans for Grizedale Close were first thrown out by Bolton Council’s planning committee in November 2021 after more than 100 residents signed a petition in opposition to it and Bolton West MP Chris Green also signalled his disapproval.
Critics said the new homes could do damage to the environment and lead to the loss of the area’s distinctive character.
Mr Green had also argued that the scheme could have increased congestion and felt that the borough’s brownfield land would be much better suited to new housing.
But Watson Homes had argued that the new homes would help meet Bolton’s need for affordable housing stock.
Amended plans, which reduced some of the flats from two to one bedrooms, were put back before the council last year only to be refused once again after several delays.
Cllr Hayes felt that this decision vindicated the arguments that he and other opponents of the scheme had made.
He said: “In terms of the decision itself, I’m very pleased about it because it was mainly about the four-storey building and I think there were also very strong reasons for refusal on the grounds of biodiversity.”
A report carried out by government inspector TJ Burnham agreed that the proposed homes would ‘conflict with the development plan as a whole’ for the area and dismissed Watson Homes’ appeal.
The report stated: “The character of the area and the site in particular was discussed extensively at the hearing, and amongst other terms it was described as being tranquil and quiet, terms with which I would not disagree.
“The site has a generally lightly wooded appearance other than the south-western section where prior tree clearance appeared to have taken place. The site is visible from the surrounding residential dwellings as well as the public rights of way (PROW) which fringe the site along two sides.
“There would be an adverse impact on the appearance of the site, which would occur as a result of the removal of the attractive existing dwelling and the loss of some trees from areas towards the centre and at the access to the site.”
But having found ‘unreasonable and wasted expenses’ in the appeals process, Mr Burnham also ruled that it should fall on the council to pay costs to Watson Homes.
The developer will now be invited to send details of the costs incurred to Bolton Council to reach an agreement on the amount to be paid.
Planning committee chair Cllr John Walsh said: “It should have been refused, the committee and residents were right.
“I accept national planning policies are in place but I do think it's unreasonable that costs are awarded against us when we represent the views and the concerns of residents and that even when the inspectorate agrees with us they still order us to pay costs.”
A Bolton Council spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the Planning Inspector has dismissed the appeal, but it is disappointing that that costs have been awarded.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel