Janet Rae - "Protecting Our Heritage in Heaton"

This is the text of a talk given by Janet Rae, Chair of the Heaton Residents' Association at the Branch meeting on 5th May 2004.

Janet was warmly welcomed to the meeting and began by saying that it was almost a year since she had last addressed us and was grateful for the chance to give an update.

This time last year the Heaton Residents' Association (HRA) had only just been formed due to concerns expressed about the planned development of the Bloomfield site. There had been great concern about losing this fine old house which, in any case, was in a conservation area.

A supplementary planning guidance (SPG) policy was ratified in August 2003 and Janet highlighted some of the details of it. In places where there is no need for regeneration the Council will resist the demolition of existing dwellings and the HRA was pleased that the guidance was accepted.

Naturally enough, the developers didn't like the SPG and there have been appeals.

Pauline asked if the SPG was enforceable. Janet said that it is important to recognise that they are supplementary to other planning guidance. National planning guidance specifies the density at which dwellings can be built but there are other clauses, e.g. those relevant to maintaining the character and attractiveness of an area.

The SPG has been used by the Council as the basis for turning down several development proposals. One example was a development plan on Oakwood Drive. The first application that the HRA were involved in was the Bloomfield site (a Victorian house with extensive gardens). The planning application was turned down as being not suitable for the area. Recently, a different builder has put in a new application, only marginally smaller than the previous application, with four storeys rather than five. Another application has been submitted for seven houses on the site.

The Oakwood Drive application was a test for the SPG. The builders had consent for the first house built but then wanted to demolish another for a further development. HRA opposed the second application and it was turned down by Bolton Council. The builder appealed, the Planning Inspector allowed the appeal and the development has gone ahead. The HRA were very disappointed to lose this but the SPG had not been fully ratified at that stage. Two different Inspectors may give different decisions about any one application.

More recent issues that the HRA has been involved in:

The proposal on Old Kiln Lane to demolish three houses and build three apartment blocks with 10 flats in each, losing the gardens to provide standing for cars. The application has been turned down by Bolton Council because it is:

• Against the SPG
• Would result in overdevelopment of the site and would be incompatible with the area

Janet said that she had heard today that the builder has appealed!

It was noted that builders make extremely good offers to owners of large houses to encourage them to sell and make very large profits if they can develop such a site with as may dwellings as possible.

The HRA was involved with another small development on Oakwood Drive where two houses were planned to be built in the gardens of two houses. The plan was, again, turned down by the Council but approved on appeal. Janet said that the character of Oakwood Drive is being lost with all the new developments that are taking place.

Terry asked what was the point of Bolton Council turning down applications if they can just be approved on appeal and asked if it cost the Council money in the appeal. Janet said that the Council (and the builders) has to have a barrister, so there are costs involved.

There was a proposal to demolish a bungalow on Albert Road and build four houses on the site. This was refused by the Planning Committee, went to appeal and the rejection was upheld. The Inspector gave his full weight to the SPG in her judgement on this application and Janet said that this is encouraging.

She mentioned another proposal at Clough Lodge. The site already has consent to demolish dating back some years. The plan is to build a new house about five times the size of the old one, effectively two houses joined together. The development is within the conservation area.

Eve asked about a planning application in Regent Road and Janet said that there have been several there. There is a Lostock Residents' Association and the HRA have joined up with them on some applications.

Janet continued, saying that the HRA work on a consultation model and try to disseminate advice and information. The HRA has taken on some proposals that have been brought to their notice and helped, e.g. by providing pro-forma letters of objection.

Terry asked if members of the HRA attended the Area Forums and Janet said that they did. She also said that the HRA and LRA had invited Council officials to a joint meeting and they had attended.

Graham commented that the Council seems to be very supportive of the aims of the Residents' Associations, although objections to developments weren't always successful. Craig said that central Government supported more development but Graham said that and such development should meet local needs. Janet was encouraged that the Council are using the SPG.

Terry thought that the Council could be blamed for some of the inappropriate development and gave an example. Graham said he understood that local people were actually in favour of the development that Terry had mentioned.

The Inspector for the Bloomfield site had noted that mistakes had been made in the past with respect to developments but didn't mean that they should be repeated or used as precedents.

June said that continual pressure from residents and organisations such as HRA and LRA was important and must be kept up.

Eve said that each case is individual with its own merits or problems.

After further discussion Graham thanked Janet for her contribution and Pauline for the use of her home and her hospitality. He declared the meeting closed at 9:18 pm.

Return to our Talks and Discussions page.