PROTESTERS have stepped up their fight to stop one of Salford’s few remaining farms being flattened for a housing development.
Burgess Farm in Walkden has 400 sheep and 50 beef cattle and also supplies eggs to local shops.
But 50 acres of its land – including the site of the farm buildings – has been earmarked by the council for more than 1,000 new homes.
Protesters have handed in a 750-name petition against the plan and submitted hundreds of individual letters. They say nearby roads are gridlocked in rush hour and the land is prone to flooding and subsidence.
About half of the 170-acre farm is owned by Peel Holdings, which also owns the Trafford Centre and recently lost a bid to build a racecourse on greenbelt land in Worsley.
A council strategy report says part of the Peel Holdings’ property should be released to make room for some of the 2,650 homes proposed for Walkden and Little Hulton. The development would also include a primary school with 210 places.
The council says there is a ‘strong argument’ for limited release of greenfield land and says Burgess Farm would be the most suitable option.
But Eddie Howarth, a member of the 50-strong campaign group, said: “This is the only working farm in Salford West.
“In 2003, Peel applied for planning permission for homes at the site and it was refused by Salford council on the grounds that the land was unsuitable.
“This proposal would bring increased congestion and pollution from traffic.”
The council has to produce a final draft of the Core Strategy report, which contains the proposal, by August. There will then be six weeks of public consultation before it is submitted to the secretary of state for the environment for approval.

Showing comments 1 to 10 and replies | View All
Iain Lindley, Walkden (21/01/2010 at 13:22)
Sensible Stockport (21/01/2010 at 17:20)
City & Dunne forever (21/01/2010 at 17:36)
No, that photo shows a working farm with the hens whose eggs are supplied to local shops.
If the council want this land releasing for Council houses why don't they repair more of the ones that are currently lying empty across the city?
If they are looking to also build a Primary school there, why are they talking of surplus places in the local schools? Why not use the places they already have?
Doesn't quite add up somehow.
Sensible Stockport (21/01/2010 at 18:40)
Leon Weastie, Stuck in a Bockle Over the Mode (22/01/2010 at 03:21)
If "more" than 1,000 homes = less than 0.05 acre per home I really do hope you lot like each other,don't fart too loud either.
Wow I just worked it out,if Peel Holdings or the Council had rights on my property I would have 22.5 council houses in my front and back yard. It would be like living in Elderly Edge. ;)
Ian "Rocky" Upton, Bury (22/01/2010 at 15:48)
Sensible Stockport (22/01/2010 at 17:15)
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (22/01/2010 at 18:28)
Sensible Stockport (22/01/2010 at 20:30)
Its a matter of pure economics.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (24/01/2010 at 16:34)
Is it more to do with obtaining planning and consultation fees etc from developers