Councillors have recommended refusal for plans to build 181 homes on green belt land in Hazel Grove, Stockport, after a community group warned the development could destroy the nearby Happy Valley Nature Reserve, a local 'gem'.
Plans for 181 homes near nature reserve
The application, considered this week, proposes building off Jacksons Lane in Hazel Grove, entirely within the green belt and close to the Happy Valley Nature Reserve and the Lady Brook Site of Biological Importance. The scheme follows approval last month for 160 homes in the same area.
The development would include 91 affordable homes, with 20 designated for social rent. Plans also include funding for new open space, a £30,000 contribution to support nature within the reserve, £1.3m towards education provision, and £243,608 for additional floorspace at up to three medical centres.
Community concerns over wildlife and traffic
Deborah Hind, speaking on behalf of the Friends of Happy Valley, expressed alarm over the potential impact on the area and its wildlife, which she described as a 'massive asset' to the borough. She warned that increased footfall could degrade the area over time if the plans were approved.
She said: "We are about to devastate such an asset, such a gem in Stockport and I sound quite emotional because that's what I am, because I just can't believe that we're allowing another development and people are going to walk down into that valley."
Responding to a councillor's question, she added: "If we make the nature reserve smaller and smaller and smaller because we've built on all those fields which inadvertently were really part of the nature reserve, then we're just going to remove nature because it won't be able to survive in the area."
Developer argues for affordable housing
Former councillor Paul Bellis said traffic in the area would be 'horrendous' if the plans went ahead, adding: "This council needs to stand up to this government at last, and argue that houses should not be built on green belt here, and across the borough."
Councillors noted that without signing up to new planning rules due to take effect next month, Stockport would have lost decision-making powers over planning applications to the government. Decisions could also be subject to costly judicial review.
Clover Long, from Litchfields' Planning, argued in favour of the application, saying the scheme would deliver 91 high quality and affordable homes to help tackle the waiting list of thousands of people on Stockport's housing register. She added: "The proposals will deliver a well-designed, safe and sustainable development. It will make a significant contribution to addressing Stockport's identified market and affordable housing need. The scheme will also deliver a range of economic and environmental benefits."
Recommendation for refusal
Councillor Jamie Hurst criticised the developer's pitch as acting like 'some big saviour to Stockport', calling it misleading given the development provides only 20 properties for social rent. He said: "I feel it's just a false representation about what you're actually providing in terms of affordability."
Ultimately, councillors decided to recommend the plans for refusal. A final decision on whether to approve or refuse the application will be made at a later date by the council's planning committee.
