TAMESIDE Council giving the go ahead to Godley Green Garden Village would be like allowing a ship to head to the rocks.
An objection also believes an assertion there are ‘no material considerations that suggest planning permission should not be granted’ is ‘perverse.’
The next stage of the controversial plan to build more than 2,000 homes on land in Hyde will see it discussed at Tameside Council’s Speakers Panel (Planning) committee on December 21.
But a formal objection made by Claire Elliott, of the Save Tameside Green Belt group, has spelled out just why they believe it would be a disaster to allow it.
It even compared approving the scheme to the 1967 Torrey Cannon disaster, which saw the biggest ship ever to be wrecked when it hit a reef and a cargo of 119,000 tons of crude oil spew out into the sea at Cornwall.
A Board of Investigation concluded that Captain Pastrengo Rugiati was responsible by his decision to come east of the Scilly Isles, and then to pass between reef and islands, disregarding instructions to mariners from the British Admiralty.
It says: “Just as Captain Rugiati was too slow to adjust, he had a plan and saw far too late that the plan was doomed to failure — and with it his ship.
“So also, the Godley Green Garden Village proposal is badly off course and on its current trajectory doomed to failure.
“The question is whether the planning authority has the independence statute demands and the integrity of purpose to refuse an application which is clearly defective.
“Furthermore, whether the council’s chief executive is willing to instruct a change of direction or risk ‘plan continuation bias’ and potentially become Tameside’s very own Captain Pastrengo Rugiati.”
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) which was ‘refreshed’ as part of the application is also a point of contention.
Ms Elliott’s objection says that because Tameside Council has ‘substantially changed the development late in the application process they have confused third parties and misdirected themselves.’
It adds: “By updating the Planning Statement and changing some parts of the EIA reports, and not others, they have endeavoured to make good a misconceived application.
“By not updating the EIA in its entirety, in favour of an ad hock revisions, the application is defective.
“Those promoting this development have lodged a defective application.”
Plans for Godley Green, which would see 2,150 homes built close to Mottram Old Road, have already received more than 3,800 objections.
A number of changes have already been made, including the swap from providing a new one-form primary school to new secondary school accommodation.
The proposed sports provision has also been modified, with the area of playing fields and facilities on land to the south of Mottram Old Road replaced with “financial contributions” and the relocation of playing pitches from the eastern village to a more “central location”.
Under the revised plans, access to the south of Mottram Old Road would be removed.
Tameside Council believe Godley Green would bring in £9 million of income and Homes England has supported the project with a £10 million grant.
However, Ms Elliott’s objection raises further questions over the EIA and the thinking behind some of the claims made in the supporting case.
It states: “The applicant’s conclusion that the ‘assessment of planning matters in Section 7, including demonstrating that very special circumstances apply in this case, has shown that the development is in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole’ is fundamentally misconceived.
“The applicant goes on to evaluate other material considerations and states: “In this case, it is considered that there are no material considerations that suggest planning permission should not be granted.
“This conclusion is in itself perverse in the light of the EIA that has been submitted (defective as it is), which clearly identify other material considerations which identify harm and mitigate against the grant of consent but are disregarded in the assessment.”