• Search

Residents win warehouse fight

Reporter: Beatriz Ayala
Date online: 06/05/2009

SHAW residents have won their battle against a controversial warehouse and car park.

Planning inspectors ruled against an appeal made by Fulfilment Logistics for a warehouse extension and multi-storey car park at the Lilac Mill site, Beal Lane.

Plans for a warehouse, first reaching 175ft and then reduced to 127ft tall, were twice turned down by Oldham council.

Now an appeal against the council’s decision has been dismissed by inspector Patrick Whitehead.

Following a site visit on April 7, Mr Whitehead’s report stated the proposed building would result in unacceptable harm to the landscape, and to the visual amenity because of its scale, mass and design.

Residents had formed the group SOS Campaign — Stop Overdeveloping Shaw — to fight the plans.

They even hired a crane to tower over Shaw to demonstrate the height of the controversial development.

Fulfilment Logistics, a mail-order business owned by JD Williams, claimed the development only had minor impact and presented a 500 signature employee petition which said the plans would encourage more job opportunities.

The company also said it had outgrown the site and needed to expand to secure the jobs of the 1,000-strong work force.

Councillor Mark Alcock, cabinet member for Environment and Infrastructure, said: “It’s great the result has come through and it vindicates everything the campaign team has done.

“I’m very pleased with the result. If it had gone ahead it would have been detrimental to the landscape and everyone living in Shaw.”

Shaw Parish councillor Hazel Gloster said: “I’m absolutely thrilled by the news.

“At long last, residents views have been taken into account.”

Fulfilment Logistics did not wish to comment.

Comments

Well done residents of beal lane and sos,Now lets see if fulfilment logistics are true to there word and clear off out of shaw

Report this comment (6216)

the last laugh will be on them when they relocate somewhere else and local jobs dissapear though!

Report this comment (6219)

It has been tremendous decision for the residents of shaw. i would also like to commend the honesty and bravery of the independant planning officer who saw through the case put forward by the company. Everyone knows that JD Williams will go nowhere. All their investment is already in Shaw

Report this comment (6230)

What local jobs ???? They don't give local people jobs .They like cheap labour

Report this comment (6245)

It wasn't only residents of Beal lane and the SOS it was residents from all over Shaw

Report this comment (6246)

Some people are so thick its untrue.

Local people will lose their jobs should they move, fact.

The point that some of the staff is not from Shaw (the rest are mainly from Rochdale and Oldham having worked there) is irrelavant. These people are the people who flood into Shaw centre to buy food etc everyday. You'll find that if Fulfilment leave then a fair few other small businesses will suffer as well. Ask the chippy and newsagents across the road how they would go on without them.

Report this comment (6266)

Has Libertine been in JD and spoke to the workers ??? Many don't even speak english. and local people who have applied for work have been turned down in favour of CHEAP LABOUR.
As for the shops losing bussiness.They servived before I would think the residents who have workers urinating in their doorways will be very pleased should they move. BUt thats Not JD they have TOO much invested here to move.

Report this comment (6280)

As for them flooding into Shaw to buy food , is this for their own consumption at JDW ??? don't they have a canteen. Oh yes they do a freind of mine used to work in it.
Do you \live in Shaw LIbertine????? dosen't sound like it to me other wise you might have different views.
All that matters is that Mr P Whitehead saw the true facts and made the decision which every intelligent person has

Report this comment (6281)

If they were going to create loads of jobs for local people I'm sure most would be willing to walk (yes I said walk) to work, therefore would they really need a multi-storey car park as well?

Report this comment (6354)

 

Have Your Say

Post New Comment

 

To post a comment you must first Log in.  Don't have an account? Register Now!