Reservoir plan gets go-ahead in Little Neston

Dec 12 2008 by David Norbury, Chester Chronicle

OUTLINE plans which could see an historic brick and sandstone covered reservoir dating back to the 19th century redeveloped for housing have permission.

The 12 homes are proposed by United Utilities which is seeking approval for the project at the Lees Lane Waterworks, Lees Lane, Little Neston.

Ellesmere Port and Neston planning committee decided to visit the decommissioned reservoir for itself the impact the homes would have on the area before reaching as decision.

Residents have told the borough council they are concerned about the demolition of the reservoir which is said to appear on maps dating back to 1880 although one occupier claims it may be as old as 1866.

English Heritage is dealing with an application to include the reservoir on a list of buildings of architectural and historic importance, according to a report although the conservationists have not asked for a decision to be deferred.

Borough planners describe the sandstone columns and brick arches in the vaulted roof reservoir as interesting but point out they cannot be seen from any public viewpoint.

A 10m high pumping station at the reservoir, which contains a borehole, is not thought to be of any great historical or architectural merit although it is to be retained as it is still operational.

Councillors have heard that United Utilities has spent £10,000 tidying up the building and improving its appearance and on boarding up the windows to prevent further vandalism.

The reservoir is in a mainly residential area, according to planning officers.

Following demolition, 10 two bedroom semis and two three bed detached dwellings with parking for 18 cars are proposed.

No objections have been raised by Neston Civic Society.

Neighbours sent in nine objections arguing the development would be out of character and raising concerns about its height, damage to trees, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.

They asked for the houses to be bungalows or dormer bungalows instead of two storey dwellings.

Planning officers accept the density of development would be higher than the immediate surroundings but do not believe it would be detrimental to the character of the area.

It would not be overdevelopment, they feel.

United Utilities will pay £13,385 to improve a children's play park adjacent to Woodfall Lane school in Little Neston and £8,000 towards upgrading local bus stops

Neighbour Mr K S Jelfs, who lives directly opposite to the reservoir, told the committee at an earlier stage:"Really, I would like to see it not happen."

Mr Jelfs said he had three major concerns, arguing that dormer properties would reduce the roof height and the visual impact of the development and the provision of a hedge "would stop children and balls flying off the estate onto Lees Lane."

The most important point, he said, was to insist that tree preservation orders were placed on "substantial" oaks on the site which judging from their size were probably "well in excess of 100 years old."

For United Utilities, Mr Laurie Lane told councillors the site was suitable for residential use as there were shops and other services in reasonable walking distance.

"It is an excellent opportunity for development," he suggested.

A public exhibition had been held and he believed that two storey dwellings would reflect existing properties in the area.

Trees and hedgerows would be retained and landscaping would be enhanced.

Little Neston Cllr Scott Maelor (Con) referred to the volume of correspondence which councillors had received and requested the site visit.

The reservoir could be listed "as an important piece of Victorian civil engineering," he pointed out.

Colleague Little Neston Cllr Michael Clarkson (Lab) supported a site visit and said the land was elevated above Lees Lane.

"There are considerable reservations and we have had a number of objections.

"A site visit would indicate to residents that councilors were well aware of the site," he suggested.

Planning chairman Cllr Mark Henesy (Lab, Groves) asked if a deferral for a site visit would lead to an appeal on the basis of non determination.

Borough planning chief Mr Tom Miller suggested there was "no great danger."

Cllr Kay Loch (Con, Burton & Ness) believed the committee should consider local opinion and make a visit and was seconded by Cllr Derek Gaskell (Lib Dem, Riverside).

Councillors agreed they would go to Little Neston to see for themselves before reaching a decision.

The application was recommended for permission but Cllr Loch described the development as "an opportunity lost."

Supported by Cllr Andy Williams (Lab, Neston) she was concerned about the height of the development and believed the dwellings should be dormer bungalows.

A move for a further deferral to allow a new design for the housing to be considered was defeated on a 2 - 5 vote and the application was then approved by a 5 - 2 majority.