Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed2 September 20266004977

77 Long Street, Middleton, M24 6UN

Planning appeal 6004977 at 77 Long Street, Middleton, M24 6UN (Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council) was dismissed on 2 September 2026 by Inspector Roger Catchpole, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the special interest of the adjacent Grade II* listed building, known as Long Street Methodist Church Long Street Methodist Sunday School, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area.

Change of use of former Middleton Conservative Club and Kohinoor Banqueting Hall into multi-functional events space including part single/part two storey side extension, external stairway, retaining wall, rear access, and conversion of bowling green to car parking with boundary treatments and landscaping

Authority
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Appeal type
Planning
Procedure
Written
Development
leisure-sport
Inspector
Roger Catchpole
Postcode
M24 6UN

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the special interest of the adjacent Grade II* listed building, known as Long Street Methodist Church Long Street Methodist Sunday School, and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area
  • highway safety with respect to pedestrian access and movement within the site
  • the living conditions of nearby residents with respect to noise and air quality
  • protected species with respect to badgers

What decided it

The potential direct harm to the fabric of the adjacent Grade II* listed building from the proximity of the ramp and lack of construction detail, combined with the failure to provide safe pedestrian access, inadequate noise and air quality assessments, and absence of a badger survey, collectively outweighed the economic and regeneration benefits of the scheme.

The substantial weight given to potential harm to the Grade II* listed building, substantial weight to harm to living conditions of residents from noise and air quality impacts, significant weight to lack of safe pedestrian access, and moderate weight to potential harm to badgers outweighed the substantial weight given to economic benefits and reuse of vacant building, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy P2 of the Rochdale Core Strategy (2016)Policy JP-S1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (2024)Policy DM1 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy P3 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy JP-G1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development PlanPolicy T2 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy JP-C8 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development PlanPolicy G9 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy JP-S5 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development PlanPolicy DM2 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy G7 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy JP-G8 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development PlanPolicy SO2 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy C6 of the Rochdale Core StrategyPolicy C8 of the Rochdale Core Strategy

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

68 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026

  1. Dismissed29 October 20253369111
    11 South Parade, Rochdale, OL16 1LR
  2. Allowed18 March 20253348342
    Old Falinge, Falinge Fold, Rochdale, OL12 6LE
  3. Allowed7 November 20243346477
    Department of Work and Pensions Dcs Distribution Centre, Manchester Road, Heywood, OL10 2PZ
  4. Notice upheld22 March 20243329801
    Manchester Road, Rochdale, OL11 3AD
  5. Allowed29 June 20233314663
    30 Bridge Street, Heywood, OL10 1JF

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.