ANGRY neighbours have accused Bolton Council of having 'no guts', after hearing that an unauthorised luxury housing development is unlikely to be completely demolished.

A retrospective planning application for five houses under construction at Grundy Fold Farm, in Horwich, was rejected today — but councillors say they hope a compromise can be reached to stop the homes from being flattened.

The controversy over the Chorley Old Road houses began after the applicant, Sparkle Developments, built properties in a different size, design and location than was agreed with the council in 2014.

Members of the council's planning committee unanimously rejected the new scheme, but Cllr Bob Allen said he was not "naive enough" to think the green belt site would be restored to its former state.

Alan Ainsworth, who owns a property in Scant Row by Grundy Fold Farm, said: “I thought that this might happen because the council has got no guts.

“It’s absolutely disgusting. The Government have said we need affordable houses for people and then developers start building five or six-bedroom houses in green belt land.

“It is a total eyesore and these are £1 million houses. The whole thing is diabolical. Nobody would mind if they were building homes in keeping with the local area.”

A spokesman for the developer said that the changes to the original scheme were not formally resubmitted because they had been authorised by former council planning chief Jon Berry, and added: "The applicant sincerely apologises for the application being retrospective and the intention has never been to undermine this committee."

The council's planning office denied that there was any evidence of such an agreement and recommended refusal of the application.

Cllr Nick Peel said that in the 17 years he had sat on the planning committee, decisions had never been taken 'informally'.

However, he added that an "awful lot of money and people's livelihoods" were stake with these houses, which it is believed have already been sold.

Cllr Peel said: "If the applicant will not budge from any of these plots then there is a problem. And if the council will not budge then there is a problem.

"I would hope that some kind of discussion will continue after this refusal.

"I do hope that the applicant and the council can get back together and find a way of resolving it.

"I don't believe it can be resolved without some kind of financial penalty for the developer because there will have to be some kind of demolition here.

"I do hope there can be some kind of compromise worked out in the future."

He suggested that varying degrees of demolition and rebuilding work be required on the five separate plots.

Cllr Allen said that he wanted to commend planning officers for their "courage and conviction" in recommending refusal, adding: "It beggars belief that professional developers and builders would plough on in the way they did without planning approval. It find it unbelievable. Their actions will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences."

The justification given for changes in the homes' design was the discovery of a geological fault, but the council concluded that evidence of these special circumstances 'lacked credibility'.

Cllr Ann Cunliffe said that the developer showed a 'total disregard' for the planning process and that the estate 'sticks out like a sore thumb on the landscape and ruins the green belt'.

The applicant said that they wished to explore ways of improving the estate, and suggested adding a landscaped area for walkers and cyclists.