Anger as controversial planning application approved

Residents reacted with anger when a highly controversial planning application on the site of the former Ladybarn car park in Milnrow was approved by councillors at Thursday’s (15 March) Planning and Licensing Committee.

https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/115921/controversial-ladybarn-housing-development-application-deferred

A bid to reject the application was proposed by Milnrow and Newhey ward councillor Irene Davidson, which was supported by councillors Ann Stott and Pat Sullivan.

Councillor Susan Emmott abstained. 

The application was voted through after being put forward by Middleton councillor Phil Burke.

After undergoing numerous amendments, the application before the committee on Thursday outlined 37 apartments made up of one three-storey block of 31 apartments, and one two-storey block of six. 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

At the start of the meeting, ward councillor Neil Butterworth stepped down from the committee for the application. He explained this was due to talking to residents about the provocative proposals. He had previously voted to refuse the application.

The committee and approximately 60 members of the public received an update from the planning officer, before objectors and supporters were given the opportunity to plead their cases.

Speaking on behalf of the objectors, resident Nick Cunliffe said: “Our main objections remain: this is too big, too close and too high. Put simply, this is still an overdevelopment of the site and an attempt to shoehorn a large development into a small plot with limited access.

“This is an imposing three-storey, 11.5m high building.

“Councillors, the reason for deferral states in the minutes of the last meeting was: 'to allow the applicant to consider amendments to the application to reduce the scale of the building and increase the offset distances to the boundaries'.

“The minutes published are not an accurate account of what you, the planning committee, told the developer. You instructed them to reduce the scale of the building and increase the offset distances, address the loss of privacy, engage directly with the residents, review emergency service access.

“There were over 70 people who were witness to this.

“The new scale has increased, not decreased.

“Building A is now 10 metres longer with a larger footprint and the number of apartments has increased from 28 to 31.

"Our original legal reason to reject still stands: ‘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 went on to point out how three properties on Bramhall Close and Shepherd’s Way would have no privacy.

He added: “You are being asked to approve an application which is in clear contravention of section four of the council’s adopted guidelines for residential development SPD.”

Mr Cunliffe also addressed traffic and emergency service access to the site.

Councillor Shawn O’Neill asked if emergency vehicles would have the ability to turn around, and pointed out the fire service asks for a minimum width access road of 4.5m.

A representative from Highways said the specifications met the guidance, and would allow emergency services to turn and leave the site.

Deborah Smith, and the Managing Director of Future Directions, which will provide the care package at the proposed accommodation, said: “We were disappointed that this was originally deferred but it provided time for reflection.

“We have taken into consideration the concerns of the residents. The key difference that we have made is that now only one building is situated next to the former Ladybarn pub. The buildings have been pulled away from the boundary and reduced in space to prevent the residents feeling overcrowded.

“There has been a genuine attempt made to address residents’ concerns and we think the application is better than the last one that was submitted.

"Without this sort of provision, the supported residents get little support and become isolated, or they receive too much and end up in communal homes.”

Councillor Butterworth thanked Mr Cunliffe and added: “We are trying to put something that is needed in the wrong place.”

A letter was then read out on behalf of ward councillor Andy Kelly, who was not present at the meeting due to a prior engagement.

It included: “I will cut straight to the chase. I am asking you on behalf of the residents of Milnrow to refuse this application. I understand the pressure you are under with the threat of a legal bill should the application be appealed, but I believe that there is enough evidence to justify a refusal.

“In summary, this should be a totally new planning application. There is justifiable reason for refusal and there have been flaws in the process, which if legally challenged could leave the authority facing a large legal bill.”

Councillor Davidson said: “I know people were disappointed the application was deferred, but we thought it fair to give a chance and get more information or a more fitting scheme. That doesn’t seem to have worked. This is all just too overbearing for the space. It is completely wrong for that site.

“It is overbearing of the site and I’m asking the committee to turn it down. It is too big, too close and it takes privacy away. The building is not suitable for an application like this.”

Councillor Sullivan agreed: “It is too big and too close. It’s overbearing and I would absolutely hate to have this at the end of my garden. It’s just horrible; it’s awful. It’s a horrible design and should be built somewhere else. It is wrong for the site.”

Councillor Stott added: “There is no way two vehicles can pass on the lane, it is a single-track lane.”

Councillor Phil Burke countered Councillor Davidson’s proposal, saying that he moved to propose the application be accepted on the planning officers’ recommendation.

When the application was passed the result was met with shouts of anger from the public, who demanded to know why the committee “had not listened to us”.

In response, Councillor Wardle said: “You have not come to us with planning grounds for refusal” – much to the shock of residents.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Cunliffe said: “We feel let down by the people that represent us. We couldn’t have done any more.”

Several other livid residents said: “There is absolutely no logic to this. It is beyond belief how the council can let this happen. We are all so disgusted and let down. We demand to know how much the council will make from this.

“There are so many other places where this could be built, which would be more logical - like on Kingsway,  for example.

“Their argument is to put these people into a community but there is nothing here for them – they are practically in the middle of a motorway. When it snowed, we could literally do nothing.

“There is no regard at all to the people who actually live there or the people who will be in the building. There is not even a basic health and safety report from the Fire Service, even though we requested this last time.

“When somebody dies in that building because no emergency services can physically fit down the road, their death will be on the council’s hands. It is a massive shame.”