Controversial Ladybarn housing development application deferred

Ladybarn residents at Number One Riverside

The controversial planning application for a housing development at the site of the former Ladybarn car park in Milnrow has been deferred to a later date.

Dozens of people turned out at the Planning and Licensing Committee meeting on Monday evening to object to the contentious application.

Hundreds of objections have been received opposing the plans, which originally proposed 42 supported living apartments built over three blocks with 28 car parking spaces, a café and shop unit.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/115698/residents-cry-foul-in-ladybarn-planning-dispute

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/113755/plans-submitted-to-build-42-supported-living-apartments-near-the-ladybarn

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/114175/plans-for-supported-living-apartments-on-harbour-lane-clarified

However, the planning officer provided an update when the meeting commenced, stating that reductions had been made: 37 apartments made up of one three-storey block of 28 apartments, one two-storey block of six, and one single-storey block of three.

Each amendment is publicised for seven days, with the final publicity period ending on 10 February.

Local resident Nick Cunliffe addressed the committee, representing the objectors.

He said: “Our main objections are it is too big, too close and too high. Put simply, this is an overdevelopment of the site, it is an imposing three-storey building that is 11.5m in height.

“The scheme has been revised three times in the last seven days, in an attempt to shoehorn a large development into a small plot with limited access.

“After seeking professional advice, we have been informed that the legal reason to refuse the application is, ‘the proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact’.”

Mr Cunliffe added: “It is an overbearing three-storey building which is out of scale and totally out of character in a two-storey residential area. 28 apartments are proposed, significantly more than the original plans for six houses on the same plot of land.

“There is also no evidence of a daylight and sunlight assessment for all adjacent properties to review the overshadowing.

"The plans and consultation show total disregard to the impact of this development by contravening the Rochdale Core Strategy, which says proposals need to be compatible with surrounding land uses.

“There is simply not enough space for this green and brown field development.”

“Rochdale Core Strategy DM1.c says, ‘The proposals must not adversely affect the amenity of residents or users through visual intrusion, overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy’.

“At 24 Shepherds Way, the nearest block in the former Ladybarn car park is just two metres from the boundary of this property. The proposed three-storey 24/7 building has its main entrance just 4.5m from the boundary and sits at the edge of the public right of way. This property will be hemmed in on two sides, overlooked, overshadowed, and completely dominated by the proposed development.

“The three-storey building has 22 windows of which the majority will look directly into a family garden on Bramhall Close, where young children play. The boundary is only 10.5m from the building and we feel this is a safeguarding issue.

“At another home on Bramhall Close, the view from the garden will be a 9.6m high gable wall, only 4.5m away causing overshadowing. The building will be constructed on a tree root protection zone.”

Mr Cunliffe explained how traffic, access, lighting and noise were all major issues.

He said: “Rochdale Core Strategy DM1.e states all development proposals must have satisfactory vehicular access with adequate parking, and manoeuvring.

"The residents are concerned about the safety of local school children: the access road cuts across the only route to the pelican crossing.

“Traffic is a major concern for all residents in the surrounding area who suffer from nuisance parking. The only entrance to the site is via Harbour Lane, off Elizabethan Way, and there are already severe traffic pressures in this area. Harbour Lane is exactly that, a lane with single track access to the sole exit and entrance of Elizabethan Way.”

He added that there “is no Highways report” despite the council stating the Highways Department had been consulted within the planning application recommendations.

Mr Cunliffe continued: “In a previous planning application for six houses, conditions were put in place for noise; these have not been addressed nor re-assessed for a 24-hour facility. 24-hour lighting is recommended in the Crime Impact Assessment Report, which will create light pollution for the surrounding properties.”

He concluded: “The council is looking to serve the needs of 37 future residents. Over 300 residents in the community have spoken out to object to these plans. The needs and rights of the new residents should not override those of the current residents.

"This is the largest resident objection in Rochdale history, and [the application] has no supporters.

“Please reject this proposal, as there are numerous flaws in the application.”

Applause thundered around the room following Mr Cunliffe’s speech.

Councillor Andy Kelly spoke as the ward councillor, as both other ward councillors Irene Davidson and Neil Butterworth sit on the committee.

Councillor Kelly said: “It is a complex application that has been presented as simple. It is both brownfield and greenfield land. I would urge the committee to refuse on the grounds laid out by the objectors.

The committee also heard from the applicant’s agent, who mentioned if the application was not approved by a March deadline, charity funding would be lost.

Councillor Billy Sheerin, Assistant Portfolio Holder for Adult Care, said he hoped to have “some influence”.

Councillor Carol Wardle noted that the application “was an emotional one” and was “mindful to defer” it.

Councillor Butterworth, who voted to refuse the application, added: “My concerns are that whilst the idea [of supported living for vulnerable adults] is supported, it is just the [wrong] location.”

Councillor Davidson said: “It is too much for the site. We should not feel under pressure because the charity will lose funding. That is not our problem.

“The building is too big. We have to think of the residents, as Councillor Butterworth said.”

Despite other concerns raised about no fire or ambulance reports, privacy and more thought being needed, the majority of the committee voted to defer the application.

The earliest the application can be brought before the planning committee again will be 5 March.

Speaking after the meeting, Councillor Kelly said: “It is a shame the committee did not take the opportunity to refuse this application tonight. A decision will need to be made at some point.

“I think the residents of the Ladybarn area made their voices clearly heard tonight.

“There has been a huge flaw in the planning process in my view, as some residents have been communicated with, some late and some not at all.

"The application has had five different amendments so far and now it has been deferred.

“This really ought to be a new application entirely, but I feel the relationship between the applicant and residents seems badly damaged now.”