Greater ’s Plan for Homes, Jobs and the Environment (Publication Draft GMSF) 2020

Extract from Statement of Consultation (September 2020)

West of Gibfield, Atherton

GM Allocation 45: West of Gibfield, Atherton (70 comments)

This document firstly provides a summary of the representations received in response to the above proposed site allocation as part of the consultation on the Draft Spatial Framework in January-March 2019. This is followed by a response from the Council on the issues raised.

1. Summary of representations received

Many local residents believe that a disproportionate number of homes are proposed in Atherton compared to other areas in the borough and elsewhere in Greater Manchester, particularly given the level of homes that have already been approved recently. Many residents also thought that previously developed sites and empty properties should be used first before considering sites in Green Belt, and that the site and the other nearby large development sites in will result in significant urban sprawl, merging Atherton and Westhoughton.

The allocation policy requires the creation of a country , but some residents are sceptical about whether this would materialise as a similar proposal to create a country park had been proposed in the past but never materialised.

Other concerns raised include the impact on the road network, biodiversity, air pollution, local shops, services, schools and health facilities and loss of farmland.

A summary of the issues raised by respondents during the 2019 consultation period is set out below. This is followed by the Council’s response.

Housing:

• A disproportionately high number of homes are proposed or under construction in the Atherton area compared to the rest of the Borough. • There are many homes for sale in the area. • Serviced apartments for the over 65s should be built instead of bungalows which will reduce land take. • More affordable homes should be built on the site.

Economy and employment:

• The site is a long way from the motorway and would not be attractive to logistics development.

Green Belt:

• The site and other nearby large development sites in Bolton will result in significant urban sprawl, merging Atherton and Westhoughton. • Concerns about the merging of historic towns of Atherton and Westhoughton.

Highways:

• The existing road network is already overcapacity at peak times, including at Chequerbent roundabout; Syndale Way; Schofield Lane; Road; Atherleigh Way; Lovers Lane; Leigh Road; Newbrook Road; and Platt Lane. • The extent to which development on site should contribute towards the funding of the M61 link road is unclear. • The impact on traffic congestion will be widespread and will be felt on the A580 and M60. • More traffic will increase the risk of traffic accidents and delay the response time of emergency services. • Off road parking should be provided for residents. • Chequerbent Roundabout will need upgrading to accommodate increased traffic flows generated by the development and others such as Hulton Park.

Public transport:

• The proposals to upgrade the rail infrastructure and services on the Atherton line are welcome. • New bus services should be introduced to service the development. • The car parks at Atherton and Westhoughton rail stations are always full and should be expanded. • The trains at these stations are full at peak times as they only have three or four carriages.

Physical infrastructure and utilities:

• The development will have an impact on the electricity, gas and sewer network. • A gas pipeline runs through the site. • Ground conditions are poor on the site because it was previously used to store mining spoil.

Social infrastructure:

• Local schools, GP surgeries and dentists are at full capacity and will not be able to accommodate demand from the site.

Green infrastructure and open space:

• The proposal will result in the loss of open land used for recreation, e.g. walking, dog-walking and fishing. • Public rights of way across the site should be retained. • The site was previously proposed as a country park when the Gadbury Fold site was developed, but this never materialised and we fear this will happen again. • New open space provision on the site will not be as good for recreation as the open fields that will be lost.

Biodiversity:

• A biodiversity net gain should be implemented on site. • The Site of Biological Interest on the site should be protected from development. • The development will result in the loss of wildlife habitats, some of which are protected, and which serve as mitigation for earlier development proposals to the east of the site. • The development would sever the wildlife corridor on the site that extends into the wider area.

Noise and air quality:

• Air quality in the area is already poor and additional traffic will make this worse. The new link road will increase noise pollution.

Flood risk:

• Part of the site is at risk of flooding and should be protected from development. • Sustainable drainage systems should be implemented on site and referred to in the allocation policy.

Other:

• The cumulative effect of new development in the area on traffic, noise, air pollution, green space and urban sprawl will make the area unpleasant to live in and have a negative impact on people’s wellbeing. • The views across the fields will be lost. • The residential amenity and privacy of residents living adjacent to the proposed development will be affected. Privacy distances need to be increased. • Loss of property values in the area, particularly houses that are adjacent to the site. • Farmland will be lost. • More houses in the area will increase crime

2. Response to Comments

Housing:

Approximately one seventh of the borough’s housing land supply to 2037 is in the Atherton area (Atherton and Atherleigh Wards combined). This is a higher proportion than some other areas in the borough but by no means disproportionate. New residential development in Atherton benefits from good rail access on the Wigan-Manchester line and will contribute to the regeneration of the area forming part of the Wigan-Bolton growth corridor identified in Policy GM-Strat 8. The area also has a number of large deliverable sites that are outside the Green Belt (including South of Atherton and East of Atherton) that are safeguarded for future development in the adopted development plan, and will make a notable contribution towards meeting identified housing needs whilst reducing Green Belt release.

Prioritising the development of brownfield sites and the reuse of vacant buildings is a key objective of the GMSF as set out in Policy GM-S1. Homes for sale in an area does not reflect low demand but represents churn which is important for a healthy housing market.

25% affordable housing will be required in accordance with Local Plan Core Strategy CP6, subject to viability.

Employment and economy:

The GMSF proposes a substantial mixed-use development of the site, comprising around 500 homes and 45,500 sqm of B1, B2 and/or B8 employment floorspace. The employment development will be delivered in the south east of the allocation as a logical extension to the existing employment area at Gibfield Park. It is envisaged that this will consist predominantly of light industrial uses, not logistics uses which tend to require larger plots to what will be available.

Green Belt:

As set out in Section 12 of the Topic Paper, the 2020 Green Belt Harm assessment concludes that the release of the allocation would weaken the Green Belt boundary and significantly reduce the connectivity of adjacent retained Green Belt by narrowing the Green Belt gap between Atherton and Westhoughton to the north of the allocation. Harm to the Green Belt purposes is not considered as significant in the southern and central parts of the site. Despite this, it is the council’s view that the development will bring significant benefits, as set out in the Topic Paper, that will significantly outweigh its harm and represent exceptional circumstances in accordance with national planning policy. A significant proportion of the allocation is to be retained within the Green Belt and developed as a country park.

Highways: The Locality Assessment has assessed the impact of the proposed development on the local highway network and concludes that the proposed development is acceptable in highway terms, subject to mitigation measures. This is covered in clause 5 of the policy. The policy also requires the development to safeguard sufficient land to allow for a potential future extension of Gibfield Park Way northwards to the M61.

The transport study suggests the traffic generated by the West of Gibfield may travel to the A580 East Road and M60, however, the traffic impact is low and there is no discernible effect on the performance of the strategic sections of highway.

There is no evidence to suggest that the traffic generated by West of Gibfield and all other GMSF allocations will increase the risk of traffic accidents and delay the response time of emergency services.

Parking will be provided in accordance with local planning policy.

Public transport:

Much of the allocation is within an easy walking distance of existing bus stops which provide frequent services to a range of destinations within both the local area and beyond to Wigan, Leigh and Bolton. The V2 service from Atherton provides frequent and fast services to Manchester city centre. The need for any diversions or improvements to existing bus services can be explored further at the time the proposals are brought forward for development.

The Greater Manchester 2040 Transport Strategy details proposals to increase the frequency of services on the Wigan – Manchester railway line (serving Daisy Hill and Atherton) to four trains per hour in the peak periods. These will provide significant enhancements to existing rail services, providing frequent services to the regional centre from the allocation. In addition, there are prospects for ‘tram-train’ services on the line with potential further frequency increases.

The car parks at Atherton and Westhoughton rail stations should not be impacted by the allocation. The policy requires the development to provide safe and convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists to Daisy Hill and Hag Fold rail stations. Physical Infrastructure and utilities:

As set out in Section 11 of the Topic Paper, utilities companies have been consulted on the proposed allocation and not identified any capacity issues, just requiring sufficient easements to protect utility infrastructure. This is covered in clause 10 of the policy.

As set out in Section 10 of the Topic Paper, a preliminary risk assessment of the site, undertaken by LKC on behalf of the site promoter, identified a high gas risk on the site and some low to moderate risks relating to contamination. However, LKC concluded that the assessment provided sufficient information to allow the validation of any future planning application and for conditional planning approval to be granted.

Social infrastructure: Consultation with education and health providers has confirmed that new provision is not required within the allocation to address local needs. However, developers will be required to make an appropriate financial contribution, through a planning obligation or planning condition, based on an analysis of need at the planning application stage, to mitigate any education and/or health needs arising from the development.

Green infrastructure and open space:

As set out in clause 8 of the policy, the development will provide a substantive accessible green infrastructure corridor and country park on land remaining in the Green Belt within the allocation, and ensure ongoing arrangements for its maintenance, agreed with the Council. The delivery of the country park will provide enhanced and accessible recreation opportunities within the area, benefitting the health and wellbeing of local residents.

Public footpaths will be retained or rerouted to ensure safe and convenient access to pedestrian and cyclists to bus and rail services.

Biodiversity:

The delivery of the country park will make a notable contribution to the requirement for achieving at least a 10% biodiversity net gain from the development.

As set out in Section 16 of the Topic Paper, an Ecological Assessment of the site undertaken by TEP on behalf of the site promoters identified that the site contains a number of different habitats varying in quality. These include wildlife corridors, ponds and acid grassland, which will need to be carefully considered as part of the site’s development. As such, any development within these areas will need to be supported by a range of ecological surveys at the masterplanning and planning application stage.

Noise and air quality:

A Baseline Air Quality Assessment and a Strategic Environmental Noise Review have been undertaken by specialist consultants on behalf of the site promoter. These recommend that any future planning application for the site will need to be supported by detailed air quality and acoustic assessments to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented as required.

Flood risk:

The Drainage and Flood Risk Appraisal confirms that the site is located almost entirely within Flood Zone 1. The majority of the land has a low probability of flooding. A small area of former colliery land to the west adjacent to Lower Leigh Road has a higher risk of flooding (Flood Zone 2 and 3), but this land is excluded from the proposed development area and will form part of the proposed Country Park. The use of SuDS is promoted through GMSF Policy GMS-5.

Other:

Clause 1 of the revised policy requires the development of the site to be in accordance with a masterplan that has been approved by the council. This will ensure a co-ordinated approach to the development and ensure that the design and layout takes account of key constraints and opportunities presented by the site and incorporates mitigation measures that are required in terms of issues such as green space, landscaping, air quality and noise.

The site is not intensively farmed and is generally of low quality having limited agricultural yield. The Agricultural Land Classification reveals that the site does not contain “Best and Most Versatile” Farmland.

There is no evidence demonstrating that new homes in an area results in a detrimental impact on crime.