“It’s a sham” – furious residents’ spokesman hits out at ‘flawed’ planning process after huge warehouses get go ahead

A furious residents’ spokesman has hit out at the ‘flawed’ process that resulted in two huge warehouses being granted planning permission –  calling it a ‘sham’ and a ‘show trial’.

Proposals for two industrial units – standing at 12.5 and 10 metres tall respectively – at Kingsway Business Park, in Rochdale, were passed by a majority vote of Rochdale council’s planning committee last month.
 

Read more: New warehouses get the go-ahead despite residents’ plea over noise pollution ‘torture’Published: 30 May 2023

The application – from developer Wilson Bowden – was ultimately given the nod, despite pleas from people living nearby, who said their lives were already being made a misery by noise pollution from the site.

Simon Goldstone, of Lower Lane, represented locals at the meeting, telling the panel about their ‘very grave concerns about noise, vibrations, light pollution, loss of sleep and impact on our health’.

The committee criticised Wilson Bowden for failing to engage widely with residents after the application was deferred for that very reason back in February.

The developer cited GDPR resrictions – representative Gary Lees saying they had been unable to get everyone’s name and address but met with Mr Goldstone to ‘take on board those concerns from local residents’.

However, councillors were unconvinced, with councillor Peter Winkler labelling it a ‘poor excuse’ and councillor Peter Malcolm questioning why the firm did not hire a room and leaflet residents.

But despite several members expressing their sympathy with residents, 10 of the 12-strong panel ultimately voted the scheme through, citing an absence of ‘material planning reasons’ to refuse the application.

The council says a detailed report was presented to the committee and determined in line with planning law, national and local policies and the authority’s own democratic processes.

Mr Goldstone, who described the sleep-deprivation residents’ suffer as ‘torture’ – has now lodged a formal complaint over the way the application was determined by the council.

In a letter to chief executive Steve Rumbelow, he says it is ‘obvious’ that the planning process and the decisions made by the committee were ‘completed flawed’.

“The reason for this is that it is abundantly clear the committee is terrified of blocking a plan, only for a developer with deep pockets (such as Wilson Bowden in this case) appealing the decision and subsequently forcing the council to defend their decision,” he writes.

“Since such a defence requires solicitors time and costs, rather than do the right thing, the councillors roll over and acquiesce to corporate bullies. Instead of standing on principle, regardless of the risk, it’s a lot easier and safer just to fold.”

He goes on to reference a contribution made by councillor Peter Winkler – the only councillor to vote against the application – who questioned the purpose of the committee if it was always going to be cowed by the threat of a costly appeal.

Mr Goldstone’s letter adds: “If the committee lacks the teeth, the bravery and the backing to block a proposal, because they are in fear of developers with deep pockets, then what’s the point? It’s just a show trial, a sham.

He continues: “One or two councillors show a bit of willing, the planning officers look embarrassed for a while, but after a moment’s shuffling of papers, they acquiesce too. 

“You might as well save the money completely, disband the committee and let the developers crack on doing what they want.”

At the meeting on 25 May, Gary Lees, representing Wilson Bowden Developments, told councillors the principle of development for industrial and warehouse at the business park had been established with the grant of planning permission back in 1999.

Mr Lees added that Kingsway Business Park was a ‘long term investment’ to deliver jobs, with the application only being brought before the committee due to the developer now wishing to construct taller buildings.

He argued that the developer had ‘gone the extra mile in trying to deliver the noise levels which are lower than what is permitted within the outline scheme’, before stressing the importance of the hundreds of jobs it would bring to the site.

A spokesperson for Rochdale council said: “A detailed report on the proposed development was presented to the committee.

“This planning application was determined, as with all applications, in line with planning law, national and local policies and the council’s democratic processes, which broadly reflect those used by other local authorities.”

Nick Statham, Local Democracy Reporting Service