I wrote about the planning application for 403 new houses at Castle Road on my Facebook page last month, but I’ve started to take a longer look at the detailed documents in the planning application itself, as submitted by Wain Homes. There are well over 100 documents to look through and analyse, but I want to focus this post on the proposed travel plan.
For those just hearing about this, the proposal by Wain Homes presents a picture of a highly sustainable development of hundreds of houses where residents will walk, cycle and use public transport for a substantial proportion of their journeys. However, a careful reading of the documents reveals a growing gap between the aspirations presented on paper and the reality experienced by local people who already live nearby.
At first glance the document appears impressive. It is full of references to sustainable transport, active travel, modal shift and reducing car dependency. But when examined in detail, many of the assumptions underpinning the Travel Plan are either highly optimistic, dependent upon infrastructure that does not yet exist, or simply do not reflect how people currently travel in this part of Bury.
What the Travel Plan Claims
The Travel Plan repeatedly argues that the site is highly accessible by non-car travel.
It states:
“The site has good levels of accessibility by all the main non-car modes of transport.”
and
“Access to the site by foot and cycle is of a good standard, and public transport connections are also available within close proximity.”
The whole case for the site’s sustainability is built around these assertions. The problem is that when the evidence within the report itself is examined, many of these claims begin to unravel.
Even the Travel Plan Admits Existing Constraints
One of the most revealing sections appears early in the document.
The authors acknowledge that:
- The development has only one point of access via Castle Road.
- The motorway acts as a barrier between the site and neighbouring communities.
- There is a discontinuity in footway provision near the M66 bridge.
- Many of the claimed transport benefits depend on the wider Northern Gateway development which does not yet exist.
In fact, the report explicitly states:
“Until the wider site is constructed, these benefits will not be in place.”
That sentence alone raises a fundamental question. If the sustainable transport infrastructure does not yet exist, can this application genuinely be described as sustainable today?
The Bus Service Problem
Perhaps the greatest weakness in the Travel Plan is public transport.
The currently nearest bus stop is stated to be approximately 500 metres from the site on Hollins Lane.
However, the document itself cites official guidance from the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation stating:
“The maximum walking distance to a bus stop should not exceed 400m and preferably be no more than 300m.”
The site exceeds that standard.
Not by a little.
By 25%.
Rather than accepting this shortcoming, the report attempts to dismiss it by arguing residents will still use the stop and by suggesting a future bus stop will likely be provided as part of Northern Gateway. This is where the argument becomes problematic.
Northern Gateway Does Not Yet Have Planning Permission
The Travel Plan repeatedly relies on future transport improvements associated with Northern Gateway:
- New bus stops.
- Improved services.
- Better connectivity.
- Additional walking and cycling links.
- A future bus route through the site.
Yet those elements are not currently available.
Planning decisions must generally be based on infrastructure that exists, or infrastructure guaranteed through the application itself. A speculative future bus stop arising from a future development does not provide sustainable transport options for the first residents moving into the development. The Travel Plan is effectively asking decision makers to approve today’s housing based on transport infrastructure that may arrive years later. Or potentially not at all.
Active Travel England have said they cannot support this planning application as it stands, due to the reasons above.
The Manchester Commute Test
The report suggests residents could:
- Walk to a bus stop.
- Catch a bus to Bury.
- Connect to Metrolink.
- Travel into Manchester.
Technically possible?
Yes.
Realistic for most commuters?
Highly questionable.
The Travel Plan focuses heavily on theoretical accessibility rather than practical travel patterns.
Many people commute based on:
- Total journey time.
- Reliability.
- Convenience.
- Number of interchanges.
The difference between a 30 minute car journey and a journey involving a walk, a bus, a Metrolink service and further walking is substantial. In reality, many residents are likely to choose the car for precisely the journeys the Travel Plan assumes will transfer to public transport.
Walking Distances Look Optimistic
The report claims the site is:
- 500 metres from bus stops.
- 650 metres from the GP.
- 650 metres from the pharmacy.
- 750 metres from local shops.
- 800 metres from Unsworth Academy.
These figures merit closer scrutiny.
Many residents have pointed out that the Travel Plan appears to assume direct routes which may not represent how people can actually move around the area.
The critical issue is that travel plans often measure distance “as the crow flies” or via idealised network routes.
Real world journeys involve:
- Crossing roads.
- Navigating gradients.
- Following existing footpaths.
- Avoiding unsuitable routes.
The practical walk from the development to facilities in Unsworth may be significantly less convenient than the report suggests.
Is Griffe Lane Really a Safe Walking Route?
The Travel Plan identifies public rights of way including Griffe Lane and nearby footpaths. However, local residents regularly observe:
- Heavy agricultural traffic.
- HGV movements.
- Industrial vehicle traffic.
- Farm machinery.
Anyone familiar with Griffe Lane knows it is not a pleasant suburban walking environment.
The report presents rights of way on a map. Residents experience them on the ground. Those are not always the same thing.
A route can be legally walkable while still being unsuitable, intimidating or unattractive for everyday travel.
“The Topography is Conducive to Walking”
One sentence in the report may generate particular amusement among local residents.
The Travel Plan states:
“The topography of the area is conducive to walking.”
This is difficult to reconcile with local experience. Anyone who regularly walks around the Castle Road, Unsworth and Sunny Bank area knows the landscape is far from flat. Walking is of course possible. But describing the terrain as especially conducive to walking appears optimistic.
A travel plan should describe conditions realistically rather than through the lens of achieving planning policy objectives.
The Car Parking Contradiction
The report promotes sustainable travel throughout.
Yet it simultaneously proposes car parking in line with Bury’s standards:
- 1 space for a one-bedroom property.
- 1.5 spaces for a two-bedroom property.
- 2 spaces for a three-bedroom property.
- 3 spaces for a four-bedroom property.
Across more than 400 dwellings this could result in parking provision capable of accommodating well over 1,000 vehicles once visitor spaces are included. If the developer genuinely believes active travel and public transport will dominate travel patterns, why provide such extensive parking?
The answer is obvious.
Because even the developer appears to recognise that car ownership and car use will remain the primary mode of transport. The Travel Plan’s own modal split projections support this.
Temporary Access Without a Timescale
Another significant concern lies in the access arrangements. The application admits:
- A temporary access arrangement will be required.
- The permanent access depends upon acquiring third-party land.
- No completion timeframe is given.
The report states:
“Subject to procurement of the third party land, the permanent access arrangement will be provided.”
No date. No deadline. No guarantee.
The question therefore becomes:
How long might residents be relying on the temporary arrangement?
Months? Years? The Travel Plan simply does not say.
That creates uncertainty over how the development would operate if permanent access cannot be delivered promptly. Even after five years, significant reliance on cars is still anticipated.
The Highway Safety Question
The Travel Plan relies heavily on National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 116, which states development should only be refused where there would be:
“an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network… would be severe.”
What residents can legitimately argue is that:
- A 403-home development represents a substantial increase in traffic.
- Access is constrained.
- Temporary access arrangements create uncertainty.
- Public transport alternatives are weak.
- The development is likely to generate significantly more vehicle movements than suggested by the Travel Plan.
Those are material planning considerations and I would recommend anyone objecting should include these points in their submissions to Bury Council’s planning department.
Sunny Bank Woods (Chaddy Fields)? Really?
The Travel Plan identifies Sunny Bank Woods as a nearby area of green space.
Many local residents may find this curious. Sunny Bank Woods is of relatively modest size when compared to, say, Hollins Vale Nature Reserve which is arguably closer and certainly a far more significant recreational and ecological destination known to local people. This reference raises broader questions about how familiar the report authors are with local recreational patterns and local geography.
A Travel Plan Built on Future Assumptions
Ultimately this Travel Plan appears to rest on four major assumptions:
1. Northern Gateway Will Deliver Transport Improvements
Yet those improvements do not currently exist.
2. Residents Will Walk Further Than Recommended Guidance
The nearest bus stop already exceeds the preferred walking distance standards quoted in the report itself.
3. Residents Will Choose Public Transport Over Cars
Despite lengthy, multi-stage journeys and substantial on-site parking provision.
4. Permanent Access Will Eventually Be Delivered
Even though no clear timescale is provided.
Conclusion
The Castle Road Travel Plan reads less like a description of current reality and more like a vision document for a future Northern Gateway development that may emerge years from now.
The report repeatedly claims the site is sustainable because of transport opportunities that either:
- do not currently exist,
- exceed accepted accessibility standards,
- depend on future planning consents,
- or rely on assumptions about how residents will behave.
Residents are entitled to ask a simple question:
If the development genuinely has excellent public transport, walking and cycling connections today, why does the Travel Plan need to rely so heavily on infrastructure that has not yet been built?
A planning decision should be based on the transport conditions that residents will actually experience when they move in, not on promises of improvements that may arrive later.
Until clear answers are provided on bus provision, pedestrian safety, permanent access arrangements and realistic commuting patterns, there remains a compelling argument that the sustainability credentials of the Castle Road development have been significantly overstated.
How to object
You can email the council directly at [email protected] with your objections (make sure to quote the planning reference number which is 73519) or you can submit your objections directly onto the planning portal by navigating to https://planning.bury.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_BURY_DCAPR_65012
