Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 15

Point No 15 - Potentially better end uses for the Pennine Pets Site

A recent presentation by the Planning Department at the Area Forum explained that there was a need for an extra 700 + dwellings to be built or brought back into occupation across the Borough each year for the next 15 years.

The Land Allocations Exercise examined sites across the Borough and carried out a Sustainability Appraisal for each one with a view to identifying what end purpose each site could be used for.

Many of the proposed ‘End Uses’ were for housing, presumably to go some way towards satisfying the above need.

One noticeable absence from the exercise was the Pennine Pets site.

However, without carrying out a Sustainability Assessment on this site, a proposal was put forward to extend the Town Centre Boundary of Little Lever to include it.

I find this extremely puzzling if not perverse.

This decision was taken in the face of there being an existing Planning Consent for the Site No 74765/06 for the building of 80 + dwellings.

This consent expired on 10^th Oct 2010 but a further Application (No 85003/10) was received in September 2010 for the extension of the time limit for the implementation of the previous consent.

This is still extant and against the Council.

The boundary extension proposal might be viewed as being premature and presumptuous.

It would only make sense if and when Planning Consent was given by the Planning Committee to the Superstore proposal before you.

If Consent for the was refused, then extending the Town Centre Boundary is a nonsense.

This might possibly be explained by the contents of the following e-mail

which might show a degree of bias against this Housing proposal.

If, however, the Site had been allocated for Housing during the exercise, then the owner might feel obliged to renegotiate a sale to Wainhomes.

The benefits that would accrue to Bolton Council would be as follows.

• The housing development would contribute to the stated need for the building of some 700+ houses per year for the next 15 years across the Borough.
• The Developer of the 88 dwellings had committed to providing £238,000 in Section 106 monies.
• A proportion of the dwellings would be for Affordable Housing.
• The New Homes Bonus Scheme would produce over six years some £600,000 un-ring-fenced monies for the Council as well as an identical amount in Council Tax.
• Such a housing development would also increase the amount of spending power in the Village.

This contrasts with £60,000 (was £18,750) Section 106 monies from the Superstore a ridiculously low amount for a store that would turnover £19million annually.  It wouldn’t even block pave the other side of Market St