A MOSSLEY mill site will be transformed into 49 properties after planning permission was unanimously approved.
But one councillor believes the scheme at Britannia New Mill will leave people living nearby ‘getting practically nothing in return’ as he hit out at officers.
The authority’s Speaker’s Panel (Planning) committee heard 17 houses and 32 apartments were planned by owners Holmpatrick Ltd.
They would be developed by Millson Group and managed by Onward Homes – and despite concerns aired by Cllr Joe Kitchen, who was not against the proposal, all welcomed the scheme.
Both units making up the New Mill, which will be demolished, have been vacant for at least four years – one for 11.
However, there were concerns over parking spaces – 50, including six for visitors – and Section 106 agreement monies for green space and road safety projects being vastly reduced to £49,000 after an independently verified assessment deemed the original figures, including more than £140,000 for education, would not make it viable.
That led Cllr Joe Kitchen – who described it as a ‘very good scheme, overall’ – to question: “Who makes the decision on 106 agreements and to reduce them?
“Education asked for one and they’re professionals, so they know it’s needed, Yet somebody has suddenly decided to go up to the birth rate as going down.
“We all know birth rates go up and down and it’s a cycle, so over time it will grow again, and the places will be needed and I can’t understand why public health hasn’t asked for a contribution either.
“And who’s decided to reduce the element for highways improvements?
“The problem with the decisions like that is there’s no humanised element. You don’t tend to look at, in my view, the impact it’s going to have on Mossley, its residents, the schools and the health in that area.
“You’ve totally wiped out the education element of the 106 money.
“To me, the developers are getting all the benefits – and I know we need affordable homes – and the local residents are going to have to put up with years while the scheme’s going on with the noise, the disruption and the dust, getting practically nothing in return.”
Agent Philip Millson told the panel the money being provided is more of a ‘gesture of goodwill.’
And he told how demolition of the existing 1950s buildings may unearth artefacts from or areas of the original 1848 structure, the largest spinning mill in Europe at the time.
Overall, the use of a brownfield site, which will be accessed from Two Mills Lane, was welcomed.
The hearing, on Wednesday, September 9, was told: “Evidence submitted by the applicants, verified by officers, considers that the building has limited appeal for modern employment uses and would require substantial investment to bring it back into productive use.
“The council’s housing team fully supports the scheme in recognition of the need for affordable housing within the borough.
“Officers consider that the scheme would deliver a high quality residential development and will significantly improve the appearance of this vacant and under-developed brownfield site.
“The proposal would result in the loss of an established employment site and a non-designated heritage asset.
“On balance, officers consider that these impacts are clearly outweighed by the substantial public benefits of the scheme.”
Worries over the impact on local schools, whether the properties available for rent will disappear from a housing list as they will be bought and whether local people, who re on the housing waiting list, will be given first option to take the properties were aired.
But Mossley Cllr Gary Roylance said: “I think it’s a great idea,” while Conservative Cllr Dorreen Dickinson added: “I think it’s a very good scheme.”
Cllr Allan Hopwood, whose mother worked at the site, described it as ‘very good’ and added: “These are the places where we should be building. If this is stopping us building on green belt somewhere else, I’d have to say it’s a good thing,”
He added, though, that the council needs to consider the cumulative impact on schools after a three-figure development was recently approved on land next to Mossley Hollins High School.
Officers replied saying: “The costs of development reflect in what contributions can come from it.
“it’s a balancing exercise.”
They also placated worries the properties will eventually be bought as the accommodation will be secured in perpetuity as it is new.
In response to Cllr Kitchen’s points, council officers replied: “Because of the nature of the proposal for affordable housing on a brownfield site, which will need significant redevelopment, there are quite a lot of abnormal costs compared to a greenfield site.
“On that basis, there’s a reduction in the amount of available funds for the 106 contributions.
“Would it be acceptable with that sum of money, if it’s a reduced one, to deliver a scheme which is acceptable, or can be made acceptable via that amount of money?
“In this case, we’ve concluded that yes it can.”