Myself and another resident have submitted objections to the plans the following is a first draft but contains all the main objection points. Such as wildlife, traffic and the joining of separate areas ie Woodley / Gee Cross into one single area.
This can be copied and pasted from this page. Please amend to suit your own objections.
Ref: Land south west of Apethorn Lane ( 230 houses ) and land east of the A560 at Bowlacre Farm. (380 houses)
I feel that the proposed Apethorn development does not conform to the principle of the green belt policy as the development extends to the Woodley boundary and consequently fails to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
The development also fails to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one and fails to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.
Apethorn Lane and the Grade II* Apethorn Farm date back to the early 1500s and a housing development of this scale ( 230 homes at a density of 30 houses/hectare ) would be totally out of character with the semi-rural nature of the lane and would not conserve and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.
In addition I feel that the green belt pasture that adjoins the SBI at Pole Bank and is include within the allocation forms an intrinsic part of the ecosystem linking with the Tame Valley Nature Reserve and forms a continuous green wildlife corridor with Werneth Low Country Park. The result of overbuilding this site would have a massive negative effect on the local wildlife.
I am concerned about the effect that this development will have on the road infrastructure and traffic flow should it go ahead. The A560 and A627 junction at the top of Apethorn Lane is already gridlocked in all directions at peak times; an additional 610 houses will place an unacceptable burden on the limited road capacity.
No provision has been made to increase school and health care, again an unacceptable burden on limited and overstretched capacity.
In conclusion the draft plan to remove this site from the green belt before an outline plan
( never mind a masterplan ) has been presented is both reckless and unnecessary as the precedent was set by the planning application to develop Stockport Road College site which was passed whilst the site was in green belt with some brown field areas.
This is exactly the same situation it seems to me as the Pear Tree Farm buildings which have been unoccupied for many years and the surrounding green belt pasture.
The negative synergy of this proposal is great and I hope that it is rejected and alternative sites are sought to replace the allocation shortfall preferably on brown field sites and infilling abandoned and derelict sites.
Many of these sites would be small scale but I think this would be more acceptable to existing Tameside residents, distribute traffic flow more favourably and not overwhelm towns