Planning application submitted for 45 houses and six apartments at Ladyhouse Works

Ladyhouse Works aerial view

A planning application has been re-submitted to build 45 houses on the brownfield site of the former Ladyhouse Works on Newhey Road in Milnrow.

It also outlines plans to convert the mill building to six apartments with a new access road and bridge from Stone Street, landscaping and improvements to the bank of the River Beal.

The site is included in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework map as ‘an existing house site’: defined as the potential supply of new dwellings in Greater Manchester between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2036.

The design and access statement reads: “The application is a re-submission of a previous application which was submitted to the Council in August 2016 and subsequently withdrawn following liaison with the planning department.

“The revised application seeks to consolidate the vehicular and pedestrian access to the site into one river crossing and accordingly includes minor alterations to the development layout. The application also proposes an alternative solution to managing flood risk on the site and responds to points raised during the previous consultation process.”

The proposed development will provide 45 three-bed dwellings within the central part of the site. Houses will vary in size between a gross external area (GEA) of 120 sq.m and a larger GEA of 127.5 sq.m.

The dwellings will be a mix of terrace and semi-detached properties, with accommodation to be set over two storeys with a level of accommodation in the roof space. Each property will have ‘generous garden space,’ and substantial and usable front gardens.

The proposed development will provide a total of 81 parking spaces; 1.6 spaces per dwelling in line with the Council’s maximum standard of two spaces per dwelling for a development of this type.

The Mill adjacent to the river will be partially dismantled to remove the section over the river with the older mill building retained and converted to six one-bed apartments.

A simple junction design is proposed from Stone Street to enable vehicular access into the site. A single lane bridge, with priority from the Stone Street approach, is proposed over the River Beal.

The flood risk assessment document concludes: “Hydraulic modelling has been used to quantify the impact of climate change to the existing site on fluvial flooding. The modelling results show that the existing site is at flood risk during the 1% AEP plus 30% CC, 1% AEP plus 70% CC and 0.1% AEP events.

“The modelling shows that the identified risk to the existing site and proposed access can be removed through raising site levels. The hydraulic modelling also shows that the proposed development (raising site levels) will not result in an increase in flood risk elsewhere.

“All methods of surface water discharge have been assessed. Discharge of surface water to River Beal appears to be the most practical option. Discharge to the watercourse should be restricted to the existing 100 year plus 30% betterment rate of 156 l/s.

“United Utilities have confirmed that foul flows can discharge to the 750mm public combined sewer west of the site. Based on existing and proposed site levels, a gravity connection can be achieved.”

In May 2016, a public consultation meeting was held with residents regarding the previous application. Approximately 30 people attended and four feedback forms and emails were received in response to the session.

The application had received two neutral comments and two objections at the time of publication.

One neutral comment, submitted by John Sutcliffe, merely asked if the improvements relate to both sides of the river bank, including adjacent to his address.

The second neutral comment, from Gloria Harris, pointed out: “The map shown does not show where the new access to the site will be. Plus, it does not show [any] parking area.”

The first objection, submitted by Tony O’Toole, says: “The village of Milnrow cannot accept the added housing as the added road, medical, dental, road and educational infrastructures needed to support them are not in place, and those that we do possess are already strongly overstretched.

“Stone Street is already a tight and very busy little road due to the access to the shopping precinct being there too, not to mention access to the doctors’ surgeries, so adding 45 new dwellings at the end of this narrow road is a simply stupid idea.

“Also, building on an area which has often flooded will simply move the problem of flooding to elsewhere in the village or local area too, by concreting over the site and also by erecting a taller river bank, this natural flood plain will no longer be available and the water will simply seek another location elsewhere. Possibly even our two doctors’ surgeries which would seem a prime location for flooding in these circumstances. Thus, it would be disastrous for the entire local community of Milnrow and Newhey.

“I strongly resist the proposal for the Stone Street project.”

An objection submitted by Howard Rawstron says: “I have exactly the same issues as I registered following the application which is identical 16/00976/FUL. These need to be considered as part of this application.”

A previous similar application was withdrawn on 2 November after being validated on 12 August 2016. Prior to the withdrawn application in 2016, the site also received planning permission for residential development in 1988 for sheltered housing and a nursing home, and in 1997 for 30 homes.

13 objections were received online from the public regarding the 2016 application, including Mr Rawstron’s.

Mr Rawstron’s previous objection read: “Having looked at the details re past planning permission provided when I bought the property, it is clear that 45 dwellings is unacceptable for this site.

“D34770 clearly states 30 dwellings, and even then with that, some clear restrictions. The policy H/2 (n) states 17 dwellings, again, well below the 45 proposed.

“D20222, D21121 and D30577 also outline issues with this site.

“Also, when I purchased, due to the site being lower than Slaidburn Close and was a designated flood plain, the risk of flooding on my property was minimal. I believe that the plans are to raise the site, thus resulting in a significantly increased risk for my property and hence invalidating my insurance.

“Also, since the original submissions, surprisingly by the same developer in 1997, the site now has mature trees and vegetation supporting a wide and varied ecosystem.”

View the plans at:

http://documents.rochdale.gov.uk/pav/planapp.aspx?MyQueryID=108&OBKey__705_1=17/00070/FUL