Bolton council has apologised after incorrectly telling residents they could not object to controversial plans for 80 homes on green belt land in Harwood. The procedural error occurred in the authority's handling of a Rowland Homes appeal against a planning refusal for the development on fields close to Arthur Lane.
The town hall blamed a 'coding error' in generating the letters and has issued an apology to all affected residents. The planning committee had rejected the plans in March after hearing concerns that the development could have 'merged Bolton and Bury'.
Concerns behind the refusal
Local biodiversity, traffic issues, and 'green belt' versus 'grey belt' land were central to the refusal. The council decided that the benefits of 80 extra houses did not outweigh the potential negatives.
Rowland Homes lodged an appeal against the decision, and the case is set to be heard by the Planning Inspectorate in the coming months.
Letters sent in error
In September, the council's planning department incorrectly sent letters to residents telling them they could not object again to the appeal. The matter was raised at last week's full council meeting by Bradshaw councillor James Moller.
Moller said: “I want to raise serious concerns about the planning application. It appears that the information sent to residents was incorrect and did not follow the proper planning process. Thankfully, a local resident noticed the mistake and contacted both the council and Planning Inspectorate. Within 12 hours, the planning inspectors told residents and elected councillors that the process had been handled incorrectly.”
He asked whether an internal investigation had been carried out, what action was being taken to correct the mistake, and whether residents of Harwood would receive a formal apology.
Coding issue and correction
Cabinet member Nadeem Ayub responded: “This matter arose following recent changes introduced by the planning inspectorate to the appeals process, which now includes separate stages for public participation. New notification templates were created and due to a coding issue affecting one of the templates, an incorrect letter was generated and issued to interested parties on September 8.”
He added that the issue was resolved, and the correct notification letters were issued on September 25. “Importantly, no interested party was disadvantaged by this error, and the deadline for submitting comments was extended to October 23 to ensure that all residents and other interested parties had the equal opportunity to make representations, and as a result, no consultation time was lost.”
