AN ecology report produced by a developer seeking to build 21 new homes in Mossley has been criticised.
Mossley town councillor Martin Stimson has questioned the validity of the report for the proposed Brookfields development as it was paid for by for the developer
Cllr Stimson told a meeting of Mossley Town Council he been studying the report which was produced by Dunelm Ecology.
He said: “The lengthy ecological survey is a fog of legal language and plant types.
“I am not an expert, but you could drive a bus through it.”
Cllr Stimson cited if there was no evidence of badgers, bats and newts that would be an obstacle removed.
He also referred trees being referred to as semi-mature as evidence supporting their removal from the site.
Resident Dr Sally Davies, who opposed the development, described the Brooklands site as a “large open space linking Top and Bottom Mossley”.
“It is a significant area and there is not a huge amount of trees in the town which should be recognised,” she said.
Dr Davies pointed out the lack of a local plan was responsible for the huge amount of unchecked development in the town.
“Mossley is a cash cow for developers. It is very profitable as they can build a lot of houses which are easily accessible,” she said.
Cllr Stephen Homer reinforced his belief the developer will be refused planning consent on access grounds alone.
Tameside Council received a planning application from Paul Clements Court Properties on June 5.
A target decision was initially given for October 3, but it still has not been made.
Householders are united in their opposition with about 50 residents attending a public meeting at Milton St John’s CoE Primary.
They claimed access to the site by heavy plant from Carrhill Road, Mill Lane and Archer Street, all narrow highways, would be dangerous while there were also safety fears because of the close proximity to the school.
Brookfields was also discussed at another town council meeting when resident Alan Thomas added Mill Lane was built for horses and carts, not HGVs which would need access to the site.
He also disputed whether the development would take two years to complete, saying he believed it would be nearer to three years.