Rochdale loses appeal over 465,000 sq ft logistics scheme

Trammell Crow Company has had the refusal of its shed scheme in Heywood overturned in the face of protests from fellow developer Russell Homes, which argued the logistics project would devalue homes proposed within a neighbouring £400m masterplan.

Rochdale Council’s planning committee went against officer recommendations when it refused planning permission for the 465,000 sq ft redevelopment of the former Department for Work and Pensions’ distribution centre off Manchester Road last year.

That decision has now been reversed by the Planning Inspectorate, which sided with Trammell Crow following an inquiry held last month.

Rochdale’s planning committee had decided that the scheme “by virtue of its size, scale and form…would represent an overdevelopment of the site”.

A decision notice handed down by the council also said the project would have “detrimental and unacceptable impacts on the noise environment and the visual amenity of surrounding residents, with particular regard to future residents adjacent to the site.”

In addition, Russell Homes, which has outline consent for the 318-acre South Heywood masterplan nearby, has been a vocal opponent to Trammell Crow’s project throughout the planning process.

Russell claims the value of the 1,000 residential units within its masterplan would be impacted by Trammell Crow’s scheme.

However, inspector Benjamin Webb found “no convincing reason to believe that the overall delivery of South Heywood Masterplan, or the approved housing site’s role within it, would be compromised by [Trammell Crow’s] scheme”.

He also disagreed that the aesthetics of the scheme were problematic and added that the developer had taken steps to make the project more pleasing on the eye.

“The design of the proposed units is largely dictated by the function that they would fulfil,” Webb said.

“The incorporation of bands of colour across the top half of each elevation of the proposed units would provide a far more interesting and distinctive appearance than if each was left blank.

“I am content that the appellant has taken reasonable steps to secure ‘beauty’ in line with national policy.”

Trammell Crow was represented by well-known planning barrister Christopher Katkowski KC. Giles Cannock KC represented Russell Homes and Ian Ponter represented the council.