Planning approval granted for controversial Starring Road development

Starring Road development approved

Planning permission was granted for a controversial green field development off Starring Road in Littleborough on Tuesday night (17 January), despite concerns raised over the safety of the access point to the site. Starring Road is unadopted highway extending from Starring Lane.

Seven detached seven houses, driveways, front and rear gardens and garages are to be built off Starring Road, just after the junction for Starring Lane.

The application had been deferred on 15 August 2016 until a flood risk assessment (FRA) had been submitted.

The council had received 82 objection letters from the public regarding this site. However, following completion of the FRA, the planning officer's recommendation to the committee was to grant subject to conditions.

Mr Knight, who was speaking on behalf of the objectors, outlined concerns of a 90 degree bend in the road with poor visibility, no passing point, no footpath at the narrowest part of road and that the road fails to comply with the minimum requirement set out by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service of 4.5 metres. The safety of pedestrians, particularly school children of both primary and secondary school ages, was also raised in regards to the lack of a footpath.

He added: “We’re not opposing the development, just the access point for safety of pedestrians. Two previous applications have been rejected based on this access; the junction characteristics are identical to those denied. Whilst planning application rules may change, safety is still paramount."

The previous decision was noted by planing officers, however, in response it was pointed out that "there has been a significant change in the direction of planning policy in the last 16 years and therefore a material change in planning circumstances. The development has to be assessed against planning
policy in force at the time of the application and it is considered that the proposed access arrangements are satisfactory."

Mr Knight concluded his objection by saying: “GMFRS require an access road to be 4.5 metres. This lane is 4.2 in actuality, so it fails to comply with the minimum fire access requirements.”

However, the applicant had submitted an independent transport report which concluded that it would operate safely. The Council’s Highway Officer agreed with the findings of the Transport Report.

A spokesperson from CJ Partnership spoke on behalf of the applicant, he said: “Mr Knight’s comments about safety have been objectively assessed.

"Third parties are going over old ground in regards to the access, and it’s frustrating to hear it again.

“We have reached a point with the decision process that must be concluded. I’d encourage the committee to accept the recommendations so this is not delayed or thwarted any longer.”

Councillor Ashley Dearnley, whose ward this would affect, also spoke to reiterate objectors’ concerns. He said: “[No one] is against the seven houses, the concern lies with the safety of the junction.”

The planning officer mentioned that if the nearby green belt land was to be used for construction compound storage, planning permission would be required for that, or the applicant would be in breach of planning regulations.

Councillor Billy Sheerin raised the possibility of compromising with the council releasing land from nearby Barker's Wood to create a new, safe road but was met with objections from the public.

It was noted within the agenda for the meeting that the applicant had widened the junction in 2011 without permission, encroaching into Barker’s Wood, which had been bequeathed to Rochdale Borough Council. The fence was reinstated but not at its original boundary, leaving the junction wider.

Councillor Pat O’Sullivan asked: “Why does the developer not use the other gate? The other entrance doesn’t disturb anyone and this one is a nightmare. I can’t bear the thought of children walking down a footpath-less lane.”

Councillor Robert Clegg suggested countering the application with a refusal on the grounds the application did not provide safe access and to let the application go to appeal.

Permission was granted after a six to four vote by the committee.