Plans for ‘rabbit hutch’ flats which were rejected by council planners have been granted on appeal - much to the anger and disappointment of locals. Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s proposal for two apartment blocks on green space in Rhodes, Middleton, was turned down on the grounds it was ‘detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the surrounding area’.
Despite the eight affordable two-bed apartments - mooted for land between Broad Street, Yates Street and Chapel Street - being designed for people with mobility issues, councillors said they would not bring economic, social or environmental benefits. However, RBH has successfully overturned the decision on appeal - including the granting of four Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).
Despite the planning inspector noting concerns over the impact on residents' health and the loss of a children’s play area, she found there were several ‘alternative open spaces’ nearby. She also found there ‘no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would result in an increase in on-street parking’ or pollution levels.
READ MORE: Historic town centre building could be converted into new flats
The decision has shocked Dave Bennion, of Yates Street, who spoke against the proposals when the application went before the council’s planning committee. “What’s the point in having a democracy and democratic vote on both the building of the ‘rabbit hutches’ and the felling of the trees?” he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
“They might as well just go to the Tory government and get it approved straight away. It’s completely ridiculous.” The Planning Inspectorate says its inspectors are impartial.
Dave says the plot is ‘the only green space’ the community has, well used by children such as his grandson who plays football on it.
“That land is just not suitable,” he added “The area is overbuilt and this will make it even worse. There are real safety issues regarding delivery trucks and bin lorries because they would only be able to reverse in or out.
He describes parking in the area as ‘increasingly tight’.
His frustrations are shared by South Middleton ward councillor Pat Dale, who says it is difficult to see council decisions reversed after being given ‘so much thought’.
“It’s not something we did without consulting the residents or without looking at the plans really, really carefully,” she said. "We gave it an awful lot of thought. We are really disappointed it has been overturned."
Coun Dale continued: “It makes you feel, as a councillor, you are powerless to effect decisions. If you make a decision based on how you see it and a body above you says ‘we don’t care what you think, it’s going to go ahead’, it isn’t very democratic.”
However, a question mark still lingers over the development following the housing secretary’s decision to withhold £1m funding from RBH until ‘it can prove it is a responsible landlord’.
The Regulator of Social Housing found significant failings in the way RBH deals with damp and mould following an investigation at the end of last year. RBH has three years to begin work on the properties following the planning inspector’s decision.
Clare Tostevin, RBH Director of Growth, confirmed the landlord was ‘not currently able to start work on any new Homes England grant-funded schemes’.
"Our priority is to make sure our existing homes are safe and comfortable for our tenants,” she said. “By successfully delivering our recovery plan we will put ourselves in a position to claim future grant funding for much-needed new social housing across the borough.”
An RBH spokesperson added: “We are currently reviewing the timing of our future development schemes. Once we have more information, we will share this with the local community.”
The decision can still be challenged in the High Court on a point of law within six weeks of its publication.
A Planning Inspectorate spokesperson said: “Inspectors are independent and impartial.
"When making a decision the Inspector fully considers the evidence submitted at the appeal and takes account of current planning legislation, policy and guidance. The inspector’s summary is outlined in the appeal decision.”
