The Green Belt will continue to be protected from inappropriate development, thereby maintaining the framework of open land separating and surrounding the urban areas of the Borough.

The concept of the Green Belt is well established in Greater Manchester and the Council would wish to see this continued. The broad extent of the Green Belt was described in the Greater Manchester Structure Plan as first approved in 1981 and a detailed boundary was drawn from this description by the Greater Manchester Green Belt Local Plan adopted in 1984. That County prepared local plan allowed for the addition of further areas in subsequent District prepared local plans and the Council has accordingly made some such amendments, through adoption of the North East Stalybridge Local Plan and the Alteration of the G.M. Green Belt Local Plan, both in 1989.

The Greater Manchester Green Belt, as extended by the Local Plans referred to above, is carried over into this Plan virtually in its entirety. With the exception of part of Ashton Moss, which is proposed to be released for vital reasons of employment generation, and a very small area of land forming part of the curtilage of a dwelling in Hollingworth which serves no meaningful Green Belt function, the Council will carry on the commitment to protect the land previously designated as Green Belt.  Furthermore, there are proposals in the site specific chapters of the Plan for two small scale additions to the existing Green Belt, where special circumstances merit this.  This policy is closely related to Proposal 1 of the G.M. Green Belt Local Plan but in a modified form. The proposed changes to the Green Belt are listed in Appendix 7.

(a) agriculture and forestry, or

(b) essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, or

(c) cemeteries, or

(d) other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

The uses listed in the policy as acceptable within Green Belt could be expected to have a low proportion of building area in relation to land area, or to be essential to traditional countryside uses or to help secure the proper management of Green Belt land. Within these types of uses it would be important to ensure that any particular development would not prejudice, by reason of its scale, siting or design, the primary purposes of the Green Belt. "Essential facilities", as specified in criteria (b) of the policy, should be genuinely required for uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it. P.P.G.2 acknowledges that minerals can only be worked where they are found and states that their extraction need not be incompatible with Green Belt objectives , provided that high environmental standards are maintained and that the site is well restored.

(a) The new use does not have a materially greater impact than the present use, on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and

(b) Any extension of the re-used building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and

(c) Any associated uses of land surrounding the building do not conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, and

(d) The building is of permanent and substantial construction, is in an intact and generally complete condition, and is capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction, and

(e) The form, bulk, general design and external materials of the re-used building is in keeping with its surroundings and retains the inherent character and scale of the original building.

In the case of proposals for the re-use of agricultural buildings for non-agricultural purposes, the Council will consider the imposition of conditions withdrawing permitted development rights in the vicinity of buildings which are to be taken out of agricultural use, if it is felt that a consequential increase in new farm buildings in that area could have a seriously detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

It should not normally be necessary to show that a building is no longer needed for its present purpose, before planning permission can be granted for a new use. However, very careful scrutiny will be given to subsequent proposals for new buildings which appear to re-accommodate that original use, and in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to withdraw permitted development rights for agricultural buildings, to avoid further proliferation.

(a) This does not result in disproportionate additions
over and above the size of the original building, and

(b) In the case of replacement, the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces, and

(c) The form, bulk, general design and external materials of the building as extended, altered or replaced are in keeping with the surroundings, and retain the inherent character and scale of the original building.

(a) Is related to the continuing use of the site as identified, and

(b) Is contained within the boundary shown on the
Proposals Map, and

(c) Has no greater impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt than the existing development, and

(d) Does not exceed the height of the existing buildings, and

(e) Does not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site.

Annex C of PPG2 explains that the Green Belt contains various such sites which may be in continuing use, which can often predate the Green Belt designation. Limited infilling at such sites may help to secure jobs and prosperity without further prejudicing the Green Belt.

The existing developed sites identified for the purposes of this policy are;

• Mossley Hollins High School and Buckton Castle Water
• Treatment Works, Huddersfield Road, Mossley.
• National Grid Company and Norweb sub-station installations off Printworks Road and Grove Road, Stalybridge.
• Longdendale Community High School, Spring Street, Hollingworth.
• Medevale Limited, Oldham Road, Ashton. Littlemoss High School, Cryer Street, Droylsden.
• Industrial buildings, Watson Street, Denton.
• Tameside College of Technology, Stockport Road, Hyde.

In appropriate circumstances the Council will require that suitable schemes for planting and boundary treatment be carried out in connection with any development.

This will be achieved by the sympathetic siting of new uses and by promotion of joint countryside management agreements with landowners, farm tenants and other interested parties.

The natural regeneration of despoiled areas will be allowed to continue where this would contribute to natural history, habitat formation or landscape interest, without perpetuating an eyesore or hazard.

More suitable soft after uses can still be grant aided as part of the Council's overall programme, and a number of sites have been treated in this way over recent years. In some instances, it may also be possible to achieve similar after uses as a result of private sector led reclamation or restoration schemes, at no cost to the public purse, and in the future there is likely to be increasing emphasis placed on partnership schemes.  Care needs to be taken to ensure that existing or newly established habitats are not adversely affected where they are worthy of retention, because some despoiled areas can, through natural regeneration, become valuable as nature conservation sites.  This policy is developed from one contained in the River Valley Local Plans, but is modified and extended to apply across a wider area of the Borough.

This will be achieved through the formulation of woodland and landscape strategies and in conjunction with landowners and farm tenants. Measures will include encouragement for the development of a variety of attractive landscape types and the re-establishment of a countryside character in parts of Tameside, particularly in the river valleys and other areas of the urban fringe.

More detailed woodland and landscape strategies for the Borough will establish action plans and management guidelines to achieve the objectives set by this policy. Implementation can be through development control decisions, the Council's own work programmes, financial assistance where available and by agreement. Involvement of and support by land owners and tenants will be particularly important, whilst expectations must be tempered by limited resources and the long time scales likely to be required.

The strategies may provide, among other things, for the following:-

(a) A general increase in hedgerow and tree cover, paying particular attention to areas of former recreation and farm land.

(b) A major programme of woodland planting and management.

(c) Tree planting along the edges of the river valleys and prominent highways.

(d) Retention and where appropriate rebuilding of dry stone walls, particularly in upland areas.

(e) The retention of and enhancement of natural habitats, water areas, landforms and other natural features that may be appropriate.

The River Valley Local Plans have provided map based refinement of these areas within their coverage and these have also been carried forward into the U.D.P. The remaining boundaries have been added in this Plan through interpretation of the Structure Plan general description, and also through extension of the designation further westwards along the Medlock Valley, mirroring the similar designation in the Oldham Borough Council U.D.P.  These areas may include visually attractive features and landmarks but they may also include elements of natural geographical and of architectural importance. However, it should be appreciated that other landscape features worthy of protection still exist outside of the special areas.

(a) Mixed farmland and woodland south of the River Medlock, extending from Daisy Nook in the west as far as Lees New Road in the east.

(b) The open land around Hartshead Pike and Hartshead Green.

(c) Moorland and upland pasture east of Mossley and Stalybridge and up to the Borough boundary, including Buckton Moor and Hollingworth Hall Moor.

(d) Upland pasture land around Higher Matley Hall.

(e) Moorland, upland and lowland pasture in and adjoining the Etherow Valley and including the country park area of Werneth Low.

(a) Any development which is proposed will be required to be particularly sympathetic to its surroundings and especially high standards of design, siting and landscaping will be expected.

(b) Where the Council can influence the design and external appearance of new agricultural buildings, the use of materials sympathetic to the surrounding landscape will be strongly encouraged.

(c) The Council will normally support the retention of those residential and agricultural buildings which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

(d) The Council will normally oppose the extension or reconstruction of unsightly buildings and those built of short life materials and wherever possible will seek their removal.

The landscape of the Peak District has special qualities which are recognised in its status as a National Park. If these special qualities are to be protected, careful control needs to be exercised over harmful development, not only within the Park's boundary but also on land in other areas which is conspicuous from the Park.

This approach is consistent with PPG7 "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", in which National Parks are recognised to be a major strategic factor, and similar policies have been incorporated in the High Peak Borough Council Local Plan (consultation draft) and the approved Derbyshire County Council Structure Plan.

So far as possible, the Council will ensure that viable holdings are not severed by urban development, major road schemes or other forms of permanent development, and that the best and most versatile agricultural land is protected in its entirety, in order to encourage continued investment and good management.

Farming in the Borough may be of marginal profitability however and many of the factors affecting its future are likely to be outside of the Council's control. It is important therefore that where the planning system can have some effect it should try to avoid making conditions more difficult for those involved in agriculture. In addition to controlling the location of other forms of development, this could also involve, for instance, consideration of layout or boundary treatment so as to reduce the likelihood of trespass and damage. The issue of conflicts between different open land uses is also addressed in Policy OL5.

The reference in this policy to permanent development is an acknowledgement of the fact that "temporary" land uses, such as mineral extraction or waste disposal, may of necessity be proposed in open areas used for agricultural purposes.  In such cases, the scope should normally exist to restore the land to long term agricultural use following the completion of extraction or disposal operations.

(a) Minimise the visual impact on the landscape, and

(b) Relate well to existing farm buildings, and

(c) Have no unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent dwellings unconnected with the farm.

Many modern agricultural buildings are stark and utilitarian in design, with little attempt being made to blend them in with traditional farm buildings in the area or the landscape.  Whilst having regard to the operational needs of the agricultural and forestry industry, and to avoiding imposing unnecessary or excessive costs, the Council also needs to consider the siting, design and external appearance of a proposed new agricultural development and its relationship to the surroundings. This is supported by PPG7.

(a) The siting, design and external appearance of proposed new agricultural or forestry buildings and their relationship to their surroundings, and

(b) The siting and means of construction of roads, and

(c) The siting of excavation or waste deposits which exceed 0.5 hectares within a unit, and

(d) The siting and appearance of fish tanks or cages.

Consideration will be given to the use of conditions
limiting the occupancy of new dwellings (and of existing dwellings on the same agricultural unit which are controlled by the applicant) to workers employed in agriculture or forestry on the unit.  Requests for the removal of such occupancy conditions will be rigorously examined.

The siting, scale and design of any such dwelling should reflect the needs of the unit and the relationship of the building to its surroundings.

Technical appraisals are no longer available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although they can still be obtained if necessary from agricultural consultants.  It is therefore particularly important that all proposals in the above categories contain clear and precise details, that will enable the planning authority to decide whether they meet the criteria outlined in this policy and the more detailed guidelines which are set out in Annex E to PPG7.

Prior to the 1970's the valleys were often neglected backlands, displaying many problems of pollution, dereliction and decay. However, over the years since then the environment of the valleys has in many places been transformed, as a result of reclamation and improvement schemes, management programmes, planning policies and joint working by various parties involved. Public attitudes towards the valleys have also changed and they are now highly valued as a major resource for open space, informal recreation, education and nature conservation, which is closely accessible to a large proportion of the county's population.

Whilst the transformation of the river valleys can be regarded as a tremendous success, there are still a number of areas in Tameside where further treatment or enhancement is needed, and the importance of protection and upkeep is as great as ever. The Council places great emphasis on continuing to improve and care for the environment of the river valleys and to develop their role for recreation and associated purposes. A comprehensive framework of planning policies and proposals has been established in the River Valley Local Plans which were previously adopted by the local planning authorities. The key land use policies from the three plans covering parts of Tameside will be consolidated and incorporated into this U.D.P., some applying just to the river valleys but others extended and modified to apply more generally.

The objectives set out in the Tame Valley Local Plan are still representative of the Council's approach to all three of the river valleys and are reproduced in Appendix 8 . 

This will be achieved through initiatives by the National Rivers Authority and North West Water and by other measures.

(a) The safeguarding of existing and proposed footpaths, horse riding and cycling routes.

(b) The provision of a continuous footpath along the full length of each of the three river valleys, using riverside routes where possible.

(c) Enhancement and protection of riverside routes

(d) Improvement of existing access points into the river valleys, where appropriate making them more attractive, and creation of new access points where possible.

(e) The provision of footpaths into the river valleys which avoid conflict with vehicular traffic, as opportunities may be presented by new development proposals.

The aim of this policy is to cater for walking, horse riding and cycling within the river valleys, whilst offering a choice of routes and the prevention of conflict between these users. In particular, there is a need to protect the interests of pedestrians who form by far the largest group of valley users, but at the same time to consider the special needs of horse riders and cyclists. There is also an ongoing need to improve pedestrian access to the valleys from adjacent housing areas, bus stops and car parks, to link recreation areas and create continuous footpaths along the length of the valleys and major tributaries.

Much has already been achieved on valley access, including identification of continuous routes, provision of new paths and improvement of existing ones, signposting etc. However, further work still remains to be done in some areas, as well as the need for constant maintenance and protection from conflicting development. This could include, among other things, enhancements to the line of established routes, completion of missing links, fencing and way-marking.  Opportunities which may be presented when development proposals are put forward need to be fully considered and where changes to routes are necessitated, the Council must be satisfied that the alternatives proposed are at least as attractive. This policy is an amalgam of several policies from the River Valley Local Plans (see Appendix 9 for a full list of these)  and is complementary to Policies L17 and L18 in the Recreation and Leisure section of this U.D.P.

In all aspects of these proposals, the Council will ensure that farmers, landowners, tenants and other interests are consulted, wherever necessary, and that appropriate steps are taken to safeguard wildlife.  Particular attention will be paid to signposting and fencing and any other measures that will deter trespass and vandalism.

Maintaining the predominantly open character of the river valleys is a critical element of the established strategic policies for the Greater Manchester area, which the Council would wish to continue. It is particularly important because in some places the open land is restricted to quite narrow strips by established built up areas and even relatively small scale developments could in some instances break the slender open corridor or seriously impair its effectiveness. 

This policy is carried forward in very similar form from Policy B2 of the Tame and Etherow/Goyt Valley Local Plans and Policy B1 of the Medlock Valley Local Plan. Those Plans defined areas on the map to which the policy would apply and these same areas are included on the U.D.P. Proposals Map, defining, in conjunction with the boundaries of the original River Valley Local Plans which are also shown, the protected land outside of the established industrial corridors. It is recognised however that because of the various uses established in some parts of the valleys, and other requirements which might exceptionally need to be met there, the policy should allow for the possibility of development in the circumstances outlined. Some of this land also lies within the Green Belt (OL1 - OL4) and/or within "green wedges / wildlife corridors" newly defined in this Plan (OL21, OL22, C6 and C7), and the protection provided by these overlapping policies will be cumulative.

Where the river valley open land area, as defined on the Proposals Map, forms part of the Green Belt, the established Green Belt policies will be applied. Where this area does not form part of the Green Belt, at least one of the following criteria must be satisfied if development is to be permitted:

(a) The development represents limited infill into an established valley settlement or industrial area, or;

(b) The development is an extension to, or renewal of, an established industry where the economic and employment factors are of over-riding importance, or;

(c) The development is required in association with an outdoor recreation or appropriate tourist facility, or;

(d) The development would be appropriate in a Green Belt.

The object will be particularly to improve the appearance of industrial areas, to screen unsightly or unduly prominent development and to make canal and riverside areas more attractive. Where their impact on the environment of the valley is severe, the Council will consider relocation of unsightly and unneighbourly activities.

The Council is therefore concerned to ensure that where the built-up area abuts the river valley special care and attention is paid to the visual interrelationship between the two. It will be a major and long running task to fully redress the environmental problems of the historic pattern of urban development. Co-operation with industrialists and other landowners and lessees will be needed for measures such as planting, repair, reorganisation or demolition, in addition to direct Council programmes and use of development control powers where appropriate. This policy is taken from Policy B1 of the Tame and Etherow/Goyt Valley Local Plans and Policy B6 of the Medlock Valley Local Plan, minus the identification of certain areas of emphasis in those plans.

The Council will normally oppose any new development which by reason of its nature, scale or location cannot meet these criteria.

These will provide existing or potential corridors for wildlife and may include informal recreation routes. Wherever appropriate, the Green Wedges will be enhanced and extended.

These corridors or wedges of open land within the urban area have not been considered as a network before now, nor in terms of their connectional function with the countryside. Moreover, although certain areas have benefited from Green Belt status or zoning as open land within River Valley Local Plans, there has been no consistent basis of protection within the planning system. This policy now aims to recognise their substantial value to the urban population and their strategic importance as a network of green wedges across the Borough. It is meant to provide stronger safeguards for their role, in the light of increasing pressure to develop land within the built-up area as a result of policies for urban concentration.

Where this designation overlaps other policies, their effects will be cumulative, and it should be understood that the areas designated are also justified as wildlife corridors under Policy C6. Outside of the Green Belt the green wedges are often also zoned as urban greenspace and whilst the expectation is that land so zoned will generally remain in an open condition the importance of it being protected is increased where it forms part of a green wedge.

Additional public access will be encouraged where appropriate, in co-operation with local landowners, although it is anticipated that substantial areas of Green Wedges are likely to remain in private ownership.  Certain Green Wedges contain utility companies' operational land which, whilst needing to be kept predominantly open in character in order to meet the objectives of this policy, would not normally be available for public access for reasons of safety and security.

This Plan recognises the need in most instances to retain valuable amenity or informal open spaces, parks, sports pitches, school playing fields, allotments and other areas of open land within the overall built up area, having made adequate provision for development needs on sites so allocated. Such spaces are important to the character of the urban areas of the Borough, providing relief from otherwise continuous development, and perform a variety of functions to the benefit of the local community.

Urban greenspace as shown on the Proposals Map may include land in private ownership (although the majority will be Council owned) and its importance may be visual, as part of landscape, recreational, for access to other open areas, educational, for particular sports, environmental, as screening, for separation of land uses, offering a sense of openness, or typically some combination of these or other factors. Within Tameside's urban areas there are also many quite small but nevertheless locally important open spaces which it is not practical to identify on the Proposals Map. Many of these are former sites of housing that have been cleared and landscaped and now represent valuable local urban amenity sites that are also of cumulative importance to Tameside's urban form and therefore merit protection.

It is not the intention of this policy, however, to restrict the possible development of small areas of privately owned land which are neither formally allocated or zoned as urban green space, or recognised as recreation sites, and which may in some cases be disused or unsightly in their present condition.  Neither could protection of land with potential for use for local recreational purposes be justified under this policy, where there is no practical prospect of such use being implemented within the forseeable future. 

(a) Land used for local recreational or sports pitch purposes, subject to the exceptions listed in policy L12, or

(b) Land laid out as a recognised amenity area which contributes to the character of the neighbourhood and provides a valued sense of openness in the street scene, or

(c) Land used as a park or as a recognised and established informal public open space, and which serves to break up the general mass of the built up area.

These spaces include land shown on the Proposals Map as urban green space and established amenity sites too small to be shown on the Proposals Map.