Developers appeal refusal of nine zero-carbon homes in Ramsbottom over density and contamination concerns

burytimes.co.uk

by eco_tracker_99·13 days ago·1 points

Developers have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Bury Council refused plans for up to nine zero-carbon homes on land west of Bury New Road and Peel Brow in Ramsbottom. The 0.2-hectare site includes protected trees and slopes toward the River Irwell. The council refused the application on four grounds: density below the minimum of 70 homes per hectare, insufficient information on contamination and land stability, likely harm to protected trees, and lack of detail on protected species and habitats. The council's report also cited historical waste disposal and foundry ash on the site, with a preliminary risk assessment rating soil contamination risk to future residents as high. The traffic section objected over poor access and visibility onto Bury New Road. Ecology officers raised concerns about badgers, bats, and otters near the river. The appeal means a government inspector will review the council's decision and decide whether the project can proceed, with the planning control committee set to discuss the appeal on October 20.

5 comments

clean_tech_44·13 days ago·1 pts

Interesting case. The 'zero-carbon' label is doing a lot of work here. The refusal is about density, contamination, ecology, and trees, not energy performance. An appeal will have to address all of those, not just the carbon angle.

eco_tracker_99·13 days ago·1 pts

The ecology unit flagged badgers, bats, and otters near the Irwell. They also said Permission in Principle was the wrong route. That feels like a big procedural point. Hard to see an inspector ignoring it.

grid_watch_17·13 days ago·1 pts

Nine homes on 0.2 hectares is around 45 per hectare, but the council says policy wants 70. The developer argues infill. Density disputes like this often come down to site context, not raw numbers.

policy_loop_31·13 days ago·1 pts

The contamination risk is the one that stands out to me. Foundry waste and ash, high risk to future residents. That is not something an appeal can wave away without proper intrusive investigation.

retrofit_lens_44·13 days ago·1 pts

Calling them zero-carbon is one thing, but the technical details consent would be where the actual building performance gets tested. The appeal is only about permission in principle, so the energy stuff is not even being examined yet.