Collop Gate Farm Development, Heywood – Why I Have Objected

By Iain Donaldson

Rochdale Borough Council is currently considering two planning applications concerning the proposed construction of 227 homes on agricultural land at Collop Gate Farm, off Manchester Road in Heywood.

As a local resident whose home overlooks the fields concerned, I have submitted formal objections to both applications. I have also requested that the Secretary of State considers calling in the development for independent determination.

I want to explain why I have taken these steps and what I believe the Council needs to establish before any further approvals are granted.

The proposed development

The applications form part of the wider South Heywood development, which received hybrid planning permission in March 2020.

The two current applications are:

• PL/2026/1000: Approval of reserved matters for 227 dwellings, including their layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping.
• OTH/2026/0996: Approval of details submitted to satisfy conditions attached to the original planning permission, including drainage, construction management, landscaping, environmental protection and external lighting.

It is important to recognise that the principle of residential development was established through the original planning permission. The current applications principally concern how that development will be delivered and whether the relevant planning requirements have been satisfied.

My objections are therefore not simply about the loss of the countryside view from my home. They concern questions of planning law, environmental protection and the impact upon neighbouring communities.

Is the original planning permission still valid?

My first concern relates to the legal basis of the current reserved matters application.

The original hybrid planning permission, reference 16/01399/HYBR, was granted in March 2020. The latest reserved matters application was submitted in November 2026, more than six years later.

Under Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, applications for approval of reserved matters are normally subject to statutory time limits. Different periods may apply where lawfully specified in the original permission, including arrangements for phased developments.

The South Heywood scheme has proceeded in phases, and work has already commenced elsewhere. However, that does not automatically establish that the deadline for submitting reserved matters for this particular parcel of land remains open.

I have therefore formally asked Rochdale Council to identify the relevant conditions, phasing arrangements and any subsequent amendments that establish the legal basis for accepting the application.

I am not claiming that the original permission has definitely expired. I am asking the Council to demonstrate that the current application has been submitted lawfully.

That is a reasonable question, and one which should be answered transparently before the application is determined.

Protecting wildlife and biodiversity

My second major concern is the adequacy of ecological surveys and environmental safeguards.

The land currently forms part of an agricultural landscape containing habitats that may be important for wildlife, including bats, birds and other protected species.

A September 2020 ecological assessment of the wider Heywood/Pilsworth development area identified potential issues concerning foraging bats and recommended further surveys, including bat, badger and breeding bird surveys.

I have been unable to identify a separately published, current bat survey among the documents listed for the two applications.

That does not mean that surveys have not been undertaken. They may have formed part of earlier environmental assessments or been incorporated into other reports.

However, the Council should establish what surveys exist, when they were conducted and whether their findings remain sufficiently current.

My particular concern about bats

I have an interest in the local bat population and have previously detected unusual bat activity in the wider Heywood area. I believe the possibility of horseshoe bats warrants investigation, although I have not positively identified the species concerned. This distinction matters. My concern is not that horseshoe bats have been proven to inhabit the site, but that potentially significant protected-species issues should be properly investigated before decisions are made.

The proposed development would introduce houses, roads, street lighting and domestic lighting into an area that currently has a different night-time environment.

Artificial lighting can affect bat feeding and commuting behaviour, particularly among light-sensitive species. Existing hedgerows and habitat corridors therefore deserve careful protection. I have asked the Council to seek appropriate ecological advice and establish whether further surveys are required before approving the relevant landscaping and lighting details.

Drainage, flooding and neighbouring homes

The development will also replace substantial areas of permeable agricultural land with buildings, roads and other hard surfaces. This makes surface-water drainage an important consideration. In light of a report on flooding in Heywood (Urban pluvial flooding: a qualitative case study of cause, effect and nonstructural mitigation, by Ian Douglas and colleagues from the University of Manchester and the Building Research Establishment, published in the Journal of Flood Risk Management in 2010), I have requested evidence that the proposed drainage arrangements can accommodate the development without increasing flood risk to neighbouring properties, particularly during periods of exceptionally heavy rainfall. Other concerns include the relationship between proposed and existing homes, overlooking, loss of privacy, building heights, landscaping and highway safety.

These are matters that the planning system is specifically intended to assess. I have also raised concerns about construction traffic, noise, dust and the protection of existing residents during the development process.

Why I have challenged the discharge of planning conditions

Planning conditions are not simply administrative formalities. They are imposed to ensure that development proceeds with appropriate safeguards, including measures designed to protect residents, wildlife, infrastructure and the environment. The second application, OTH/2026/0996, asks the Council to approve information submitted in relation to a number of those conditions. 

My objection asks the Council to ensure that each condition has genuinely been satisfied before approving its discharge. In particular, I have sought scrutiny of the ecological and habitat management arrangements, external lighting, drainage, construction management and protection of existing trees and hedgerows. Submitting a report should not, in itself, be sufficient. The report must contain adequate information to demonstrate compliance with the relevant condition.

Request for Secretary of State intervention

Given the outstanding questions concerning the legal status of the reserved matters application and the adequacy of environmental evidence, I have requested that the Secretary of State considers exercising the power to call in the principal application under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I have also asked for consideration of whether intervention is available in respect of the related discharge-of-conditions application. 

Call-in is an exceptional procedure, normally reserved for planning matters raising issues of more than local importance. I recognise that the Secretary of State may decide that the applications should remain with Rochdale Council. Nevertheless, I believe the questions raised deserve proper examination, particularly regarding statutory planning deadlines, compliance with the original permission and the application of environmental safeguards.

What happens next?

Both applications are currently open for public representations.

The relevant deadlines are:

• 26 November 2026: OTH/2026/0996 – Discharge of planning conditions.
• 30 November 2026: PL/2026/1000 – Reserved matters for 227 dwellings.

Residents who have concerns can make individual representations to Rochdale Council. Please remember that a petition whether it is one signature or a thousand signatures counts as only one objection.

Objections should concentrate on relevant planning matters and explain how the proposals may affect neighbouring properties, highway safety, drainage, biodiversity or other legitimate planning considerations.

Representations can be sent to:

development.management@rochdale.gov.uk

Further information is available through Rochdale Council's planning website.

My position

I recognise the need for new housing, and I am not opposed to development simply because it is taking place near my home, however, planning permission carries legal responsibilities, and environmental safeguards exist for good reasons. Residents should be entitled to expect that development proceeds only where the necessary permissions are valid, the required evidence has been provided and the consequences for neighbouring communities and wildlife have been properly assessed.

My objections seek answers to those questions.

Before any further approvals are granted, Rochdale Council should be able to demonstrate that the applications are legally sound, that the relevant planning conditions have been satisfied and that wildlife, the environment and existing residents are adequately protected.

That is not an unreasonable expectation. It is what a transparent and accountable planning system should deliver.