Campaigners against plans to build 120 homes on Ryebank Fields secured their first victory on Tuesday night (September 22) as Trafford councillors defied planning advice and unanimously rejected proposals to hand decision-making power to Manchester City Council.
The plan for the new homes would see an access road created from Rye Bank Road, which sits within Trafford's borders. Officers had told the committee they believed the scheme should be decided as a whole and, as the majority of the land is within Manchester, that decision would be better coming from the city council. This would reduce the risk of the scheme being decided on a 'salami slice' basis, they felt.
Councillors defy officers' advice
However, councillors said they did not believe giving up their right to decide the scheme was in the best interest of their residents. The decision was met with loud applause from those watching in the public gallery.
Thousands of residents, along with Stretford and Urmston MP Andrew Western, had called on the council to keep that decision in-house. Speaking at the meeting, Lisa Tomason, representing the Trafford Rye Bank Residents Association, said: "Please don't hand [this decision] to Manchester. Rye Bank Road is a Trafford street.
"The new vehicle access would serve 32 homes in Manchester, but everything it touches sits on this side of the boundary. The traffic would come down Trafford roads, the highway works would be on Trafford pavements."
She added: "Delegation doesn't end with one decision. Manchester would also decide every latest condition variation and amendment. Trafford council's own report proposes traffic calming on Rye Bank Road and the Great Stone Road junction. I live on that road and I have seen so many serious accidents.
"I believe that Manchester would design, change and sign it off – works on a Trafford road for Trafford residents with no Trafford councillor in the room."
'No benefit to Trafford'
Ward councillors Sarah Haughey, Labour, and Gareth Twose, Green Party, also advocated for the decision to remain with Trafford council. Coun Haughey said it was a 'significant development' and 'not one brick of it' would benefit Trafford.
She added: "It's an absolute delegation of responsibility, I believe, to not hear this here.
"When a decision of this significance comes to us, I think we should have the opportunity to exercise our democratic judgement [...] I would urge you to think of my residents who bought homes on a cul-de-sac with a green space at the end who will be so negatively impacted.
"They will bear the dust, the mess and the construction traffic, the opening up of this route to any traffic. It will fundamentally and permanently alter the nature of their homes."
Conservative councillor Phil Eckersley said: "I think with the upswell of public opinion and how many people are concerned about this, it's obviously a significant issue for Trafford residents.
"That's the important thing here, the number of Trafford residents who feel like they will be affected by us giving away control to Manchester council who may not appreciate the harm that any decisions they make may have on Trafford residents."
Labour councillor Shirley Proctor added: "I don't see any benefit to Trafford or more importantly to Trafford residents for us to allow Manchester to make a decision about land that is in Trafford."
Clock ticking on planning rules
The victory for campaigners comes with a ticking clock, however. New planning rules are set to come into force at the end of October which change the circumstances in which applications can be brought before the committee for a decision.
Currently, most applications can be 'called in' for councillors to decide. This usually happens when there are significant objections to the plan. Under the new rules, more decisions will be taken by planning officers.
Applications will be split into Schedule One and Schedule Two plans, and no schemes that fall into the first category will be able to be debated by planning committees once the new policy comes into effect. The Ryebank Fields plan comes under Schedule One. This means it would have to return to the planning committee before the end of October for councillors to be able to take the final decision. If it does not, then officers will rule on it.
While the committee may have doubts about the proposals, council officers have already indicated they consider it to be acceptable in planning policy terms. Councillors called on officers to ensure that the application is included in next month's planning committee agenda. However, they were told there were no guarantees they would have all the required information by the deadline.
