SOG defeated over Runcorn proposal
The Secretary of State has sided with a Planning Inspector’s verdict that permission should be refused for the 545-home redevelopment of the Heath Business and Technical Park.
A called-in decision notice was issued on 9 March, with housing minister Matthew Pennycook being deputed to rule on the case on behalf of Secretary of State for housing & communities Steve Reed.
SOG managing director John Lewis, owner of The Heath Business and Technical Park, said: “I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State has today announced SOG’s outline planning application for our Heath Park scheme is being refused on the basis of the Health and Safety Executive’s concerns of the risk to public safety from the Runcorn Chemicals Complex. However, SOG accept his decision.
“The Secretary of State’s ruling validates the concerns raised by the HSE and it is now a matter for those in authority to inform the people of Runcorn, particularly all those people living in closer proximity to the Runcorn Chemicals Complex than The Heath Business and Technical Park site, about the true risks posed by the chemicals complex, and the effect his decision will potentially have on the value of their properties.”
A group litigation claim is being brought on behalf of residents by law firm HF, with letters of claim issued in September last year, relating to potential risk.
Approved locally by Halton Council in spring 2024, the Heath redevelopment was to include 545 homes, along with a hotel, extra care facilities, conference centre, shops, and offices across two plots: the larger one at Heath Business and Technical Park and a smaller plot north of Heath Road South.
SOG’s proposals were called in by then-Secretary of State Angela Rayner in October 2024 over public safety concerns raised by the Health & Safety Executive, relating to the site’s proximity to the Runcorn Chemicals Complex.
After some delays, over which the HSE came in for criticism from SOG, an inquiry was started in autumn last year, led by Inspector Owen Woodwards. The Planning Inspector’s verdict was that the application should be refused.
The Inspector’s view that “there are serious limitations to the quantitative evidence from all sides” was backed up, as was the critical issue of public safety: addressing this, the notice said that “overall, he agrees with the Inspector that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the potential risks to the future occupants of the proposed development would not be significant”.
Quality of evidence was a crucial factor. The HSE itself acknowledged that its CZs (consultation zones), which date back to the mid-1990s, are no longer fit for purpose, while Halton Council stated that the current operations at the chemicals complex are very different to how they were at that time.
The Inspector lamented that with the HSE’s methodology discredited, and SOG’s suggested methodology not validated, he lacked “a baseline of risk”.
In terms of the quality of the proposals, all is well apart from the one crucial issue. The concluding paragraph of the Inspectors report summed up thus: “The benefits of the proposal are extensive. It is for a substantial mixed-use development including significant economic investment in both the short and long term, and the provision of up to 545 homes including above policy compliant offer of 25% affordable homes.
“There are further important benefits, in particular from BNG, public access to greenspace, and the provision of a development of high quality design. I place particular importance on the principle of a visionary development in a deprived area of the country.
“Nevertheless, the potential scale of harm to the safety of the future occupants and users of the application site is such that this outweighs the benefits of the proposal and constitutes a material consideration which also justifies making a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan.”
As set out in the notice, the validity of the decision can be challenged: the applicant has six weeks to make an application to the High Court to do so.
So with the HSE and Planning Inspectorate stating the harmful impact the Chemical Complex has on its surroundings, surely the HSE now have a duty to ensure the Chemical Complex mitigate this risk? or the Halton Borough Council take control and mitigate the “harm” to the existing residents? Looks like the little town of Weston will be a ghost town in that case, well done Planning Inspectorate for making a correct decision and scaremongering?!?
By Move Out Quick
1) Nothing new here; residents are already regularly provided with information cards regarding emergency information and what to do in case of an incident. There is even a test alarm with air-raid style sirens every Monday at 1pm.
2) Weston is currently a low density populated area which would allow existing residents a route to escape and limit harm to life should there ever be an incident. This development was unfortunately attempting to put a high density development in an unsuitable location, it is all about managing risk.
3) There are COMAH sites across the country so nothing special about Weston, the same rules would apply elsewhere.
4) Given planning for standard housing was refused at the Pavillions site and the Heath site is closer to the COMAH site then this was the expected outcome for a high density scheme. The Heath School was even forced to be rebuilt further away from the COMAH site.
5) Years have been wasted for all parties which is wrong; the Applicant (and the parties working with them), the local Council and Residents have been left in a state of limbo during this process that moved at snail pace. The pre application stage should be clearer as in this case was overlooked which stated a development of this size was too large for the area given the proximity to the COMAH site.
By Anonymous
Hurrahhhhhh thank goodness 😅
By Ann Stubbs
Finally someone talking common sense 👏 Halton already has an extraordinary high rate of Cancers.
By Patricia Rowlands
Fantastic outcome it’s what the local residents wanted.
Hands off our little piece of open space
By Julie French
I don’t know about the safety aspect of the build. I read information but it didn’t make much sense. This statement bears that out. However, this huge development opening on to a small road is a think a ridiculous idea. I don’t know how the developer would sort out all of the extra traffic (cars and lorries, etc) and the added strain on infrastructure such as schools and GPs. Something smaller to make good use of the land should be considered but the road system needs much more consideration. I don’t live on Heath Road but I feel for those who do.
By Iris Cooper
Residents existing and new need protection. We do not live in victorian times any more, but some industries still do. What be breathe in will kill us if its bad. Power to the people
By Anonymous
My concern is not that we live in a risk area next to a commah site. Most of us have been aware we live next to a chemical plant and that the same chemical plant has been the main employer in the area for many years and without it the town would have never developed at all. What concerns me us a labour led halton council felt it was ok to approve a development that the HSE felt was unacceptable. Can we expect the appropriate resignations from the council????
By Paul Porter