# Former Middleton Conservative Club, 77 Long Street, Middleton (events venue) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Roger Catchpole - **Authority:** Rochdale (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004977 - **Application reference:** 25/00577/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former Conservative Club and banqueting hall (non-designated heritage asset) to multi-functional events space with side extension, ramp, retaining wall and 58-space car parking on former bowling green (non-determination appeal) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE5(1), HE6(1), HE6(4), TR4(1)(a), P3(2)(a), P3(2)(c), N2(1)(f) - **Development plan policies:** Rochdale Core Strategy 2016 DM1, P2, P3, G7, G9, T2, Places for Everyone JDP 2024 JP-S1, JP-S5, JP-C8 - **Main issues:** heritage, highway and pedestrian safety, living conditions noise and air quality, protected species - **Tags:** community-facility, events-venue, heritage-assessment-missing, pedestrian-priority, air-quality-aqma, protected-species-survey, e2-substantial-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Reuse of a derelict former Conservative Club and banqueting hall in Middleton town centre as a multi-functional events venue, with an extension and a car park on the old bowling green. It was a non-determination appeal and was dismissed. The inspector applied a series of new Framework decision-making policies: HE5(1) (no assessment of structural risk to the adjoining Grade II* church), TR4(1)(a) (no safe pedestrian route), P3(2)(a) and (c) (the on-site flat not assessed for noise; no air quality assessment in an AQMA) and N2(1)(f) (no badger survey). Together these outweighed substantial-weight reuse and economic benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the Framework published on 17 August 2026 (DL ¶7). - **Heritage: direct fabric risk.** "Policy HE5(1) of the Framework states that development affecting a heritage asset should be accompanied by an assessment of the potential effect of the proposal on its significance … no assessment of direct harm to the LB was considered" (DL ¶27). The inspector said a condition would inevitably be "predicated on an assumption that there would be an acceptable" outcome (DL ¶26). Harm was not substantial, so HE6(4) was engaged (DL ¶28). "there is not a clear and convincing justification for potential serious harm to be accepted which could be resolved through the submission of further information" (DL ¶55). - **"Less than substantial" terminology.** In rejecting the council's claim of less than substantial harm to the conservation area, the inspector added that "this classification no longer applies" (DL ¶23). - **HE9(2).** The conservation area must be judged as a whole; the hidden bowling green "must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence" to matter (DL ¶24). - **Pedestrian priority: FAIL.** "there is no segregation at the existing site entrance and pedestrians would be forced to cross an area where cars are manoeuvring … contrary to Policy TR4(1)(a) of the Framework" (DL ¶35, 37). - **Occupiers and air quality.** "Policy P3(2)(a) of the Framework makes it clear that all development proposals need to provide healthy living conditions for occupiers" (DL ¶43). "it is the responsibility of the appellant to prove that this would not be the case … Policy P3(2)(c) of the Framework clearly states that development proposals should take account of AQMAs" (DL ¶45). - **Badgers.** "The need to ensure surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to planning conditions in exceptional circumstances … contrary to Policy N2(1)(f) of the Framework" (DL ¶50-51). - **Benefits.** "the policy imperative of the weight to be afforded to making better use of vacant buildings and economic growth from commercial development which is substantial, according to the Framework" (DL ¶54). ## Planning balance First the HE6(4) harm against public benefits, which failed (DL ¶55). Then the wider balance: listed-building harm (substantial, HE6(1)); living-conditions and health harm (substantial); pedestrian safety (significant); badgers (moderate). Together these outweighed the benefits: reuse of the NDHA (limited, since no repair schedule), community value (limited, since unmet need unclear), and economic reuse (substantial) (DL ¶53-56). Section 38(6) conflict (DL ¶57). The letter runs no S4 balance even though the site is in a town centre (a notable omission). ## What made the difference Missing technical evidence on four fronts: structural and heritage assessment, the flat's noise exposure, air quality, and badgers. The inspector refused to let conditions fill gaps where the answer might need redesign. A complete application would probably have succeeded, given the council's broadly favourable view of design and the substantial weight for reuse. ## Transferable points - HE5(1) requires an assessment of direct physical risk to adjoining listed fabric (groundworks, vibration), not just setting. Where it is missing, harm "cannot be ruled out" (DL ¶26-27). - The 2026 Framework drops the "less than substantial harm" label (DL ¶23), but the HE6(4) harm-and-benefit weighing is still applied (DL ¶28, 55). - TR4(1)(a) pedestrian priority is a free-standing ground for dismissal where a site entrance forces pedestrians through vehicle manoeuvring (DL ¶35-37). - P3(2)(a) protects occupiers of ancillary on-site accommodation, and P3(2)(c) puts the burden of an air quality assessment on the appellant in an AQMA (DL ¶43-45). - N2(1)(f): protected species surveys should precede permission, with conditions only in exceptional circumstances (DL ¶50-51). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): fail.** heritage statement did not assess direct structural and vibration risk to the adjoining Grade II* Edgar Wood Methodist church from the ramp and retaining wall (DL 26-27) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** potential localised (not substantial) harm to the fabric of the Grade II* building; a condition cannot presume acceptability (DL 26-28, 56) - **HE6(4): fail.** significant public benefits (economy, reuse of a vacant building) do not outweigh; no "clear and convincing justification" (DL 55) - **HE9(2): pass.** CA judged as a whole; the hidden bowling green's loss is not prominent; no harm to the CA (DL 23-24) - **HE7(2): neutral (limited weight).** reuse of the NDHA positive in principle but no repair schedule; could be conditioned (DL 29, 53) - **TR4(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** no segregated pedestrian route from Long Street through the vehicle manoeuvring area; not curable by condition without redesign (DL 33-37, 56) - **P3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** ancillary first-floor flat within the highest noise contours and not assessed (DL 41-43, 47) - **P3(2)(c): fail (substantial weight).** in the Long Street AQMA with 50+ extra car spaces and no air quality assessment; burden on the appellant (DL 44-47) - **N2(1)(f): fail (moderate weight).** no badger survey before determination; conditioning a survey only in exceptional circumstances (BS 42020) (DL 49-51) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** "policy imperative" of substantial weight to reuse of a vacant building and commercial growth (DL 54) ## Key facts - Largely derelict Regency building, an NDHA, in the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area; adjoins the Grade II* Long Street Methodist Church and Sunday School by Edgar Wood - Two wedding halls could run at once; 58 parking spaces, including on the raised former bowling green reached by a new ramp - Updated noise assessment covered neighbours but not the building's own first-floor flat - Late badger evidence refused as outside the timetable - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004977 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e6ca2a9-77df-4fb1-bed8-295a3749cfc1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004977.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.