Controversial GKN Sankey factory plan to go ahead despite more than 500 objections

Mercia Real Estate (HPE Limited) was granted permission to start the scheme at the former GKN Sankey site at Hadley Castle Works following a planning committee meeting on Monday evening.

The units include ancillary office space, with associated parking, EV parking, gatehouses, cycle shelters, an attenuation pond, and landscaping.

A previous meeting was deferred in September, with the developers told they had to continue to consult with residents before the proposal was granted.

Sam Clarke, chief executive officer at Mercia Real Estate, said that since that meeting the firm has met with local councillors as well as the case officer.

“During these meetings, we’ve listened to concerns and provided more information, including additional noise and highway technical notes, various viewpoints from residential areas and amended plans for unit one which have been submitted as part of this revised application,” said Mr Clarke.

“We’ve also volunteered conditions to be attached to the planning consent, over and beyond what would be normally offered. This includes committing to a community liaison group to provide residents with a direct channel of communication. In terms of noise, our noise consultant has confirmed that the assessment undertaken has reviewed the worst-case scenario.

“There will be a condition to the consent which will require each individual unit to submit a noise assessment prior to its occupation based on their proposed use. Both Telford’s highways team and National Highways remain supportive of the application and we’ve worked extensively with the planning officers to provide alternative parking layouts for the potential end user.

“We want to reiterate that this scheme is deliverable and provides significant economic benefits to Telford including skilled jobs for local people.”

However, Councillor Phil Millward and Councillor Eileen Callear, from Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council, said that the developer has not consulted with residents.

“From September 13, we had three Zoom meetings, with Eileen and myself facing eight people from planning, agents and applicants,” said Councillor Millward.

"We requested to be accompanied by two residents who are subject matter experts in this field.

“This was denied. I asked for a public session to be held to meet residents, but this was flatly refused. Just because the law says you don’t have to doesn’t mean you can’t. We feel a refusal to speak to residents was insulting.”

Councillor Callear, who is also a borough councillor, added: “This development is not in line with our Local Plan regarding adverse impacts on nearby properties and prejudicing local uses.

“But also, it is not in line with national policy and the need for effective engagement between applicants and communities which, in spite of what has been said, has not happened. If you [planning committee] approve this, you are risking putting your name into one of the worst decisions in Telford and Wrekin history.”

Around 100 members of the public were in attendance, including Steven Bryant, who has lived in the area for 25 years.

“We are entirely supportive of investment in our community, genuine job creation and sustainable growth, however it must be in partnership with the community and respectful to the local area,” said Mr Bryant.

“Redevelopment of the former Sankey building was always going to happen, however this application is much more than that. It is huge in every sense, an invasion of the green space buffer that has protected the residents and amenity from industrial noise and disturbance for decades.

“Furthermore, it introduces high-speed HGV traffic on an unprecedented basis tens of metres from people’s homes, operating all day, every day.”

Planning committee member Councillor Nigel Dugmore said that, as the end user has not been identified on any of the units, noise and impact assessments are ‘pretty much a finger-in-the-air job’.

“They’re all guesswork and nobody even knows the hours of operation,” said Councillor Dugmore.

“I take the wording of the [noise impact] condition, but it’s like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted because once the tenant is actually in the building, you’re just trying to get around it to make sure they stay there.”

However, Councillor Dugmore was the only member to vote against the proposal, with others abstaining. Councillor Giles Luter voted in favour, as did Councillor Stephen Reynolds, with the latter’s carrying because he was the chairman.