Harman Technology plans for site redevelopment

[Sal Santamaura]

...There could be nothing better for the long-term future of HARMAN than a "right-sized" facility. Also, with the development plan apparently calling for HARMAN's landlord (LPC Living, the developer) to underwrite some if not all of the cost involved with relocating equipment, odds of a HARMAN site lease extension beyond its current expiration -- approximately ten years from now -- would be greatly improved. Here's wishing LPC Living great success with the appeal!

I've been digging around the Internet again and discovered that the appeal is moving along

http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk...7M&query=96b7bdca-89c2-46d3-91e8-3cff712a9117​

with a decision by Cheshire East Council targeted for the 26th of this month. My best wishes to HARMAN's landlord for getting approval of the revised plan!

 

[RobC]

the local residents seem well organised and have put in an awful lot of objections.

 

[AgX]

Objections practically all covering the situation around traffic, school/doctor's surgery, stress and threats from the Airport, threats by Harman pollution and the character of the village.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Deleted.

 

[RattyMouse]

the local residents seem well organised and have put in an awful lot of objections.

You aren't kidding. I've never seen so many objections to a proposed re-development! By my count there are well over 300 objections, most voiced in very strong terms.

I can't see how Ilford's future looks positive in light of all this. Are they betting the farm that they need this redevelopment in order to right size their business?

 

[AgX]

These objections bear no risc, no costs to the objecting person. As said they repeat the same few issues. In a tight suburban setting of that kind such reaction does not surprise me at all. Our british fellows may state whether such reaction is outstanding.

What puzzles me is that one argument of the hazard the airport would be to the future residents. As if that would not apply to the objecting persons themselves.

 

[AgX]

Concerning Harman: the cancellation of these housing plans would not affect them directly. But it would put Harman back in line with their resting competitors who too are faced with uneconomic scale of plants and got no subsidy for adaptation.

 

[RobC]

Obviously a fairly substantial new housing development will have a significant impact on the village. However, all councils are under pressure to build new homes around the country and a development of this size makes a very significant contribution to the local economy in terms of income and jobs.
So whilst the local residents are well organised NIMBYs (aren't we all) the council has to look at the wider isssues of the locality and what it needs in terms of housing etc.
And of course if it doesn't happen and Ilford folds when its lease runs out then the local residents can look forward to the site being devloped for further industrial use which they will dislike just as much if not more. I rekon the council would favour housing and the retention of Ilford. Betterr the devil you know than the devil you don't. But then again, the first application failed.

So the jury is out

 

[pbromaghin]

These objections bear no risc, no costs to the objecting person. As said they repeat the same few issues. In a tight suburban setting of that kind such reaction does not surprise me at all. Our british fellows may state whether such reaction is outstanding.

What puzzles me is that one argument of the hazard the airport would be to the future residents. As if that would not apply to the objecting persons themselves.

Yes, one wonders what these people will say to potential buyers when it comes time to move on. "Oh, you really don't to buy my home. It's much too dangerous to your health to live here. It should just be torn down."

 

[NJH]

I try not to think about this sort of stuff as it just makes me angry. My other obsession in life outside of work has been motor racing. My local track Thruxton almost famous for its restrictions on track activity (90dB limit for track days, very few meetings per year etc.), all the limitations in place to reduce noise for local residents despite being right next door to the busiest road in the south west and having an active air field right in the middle of the track. Its one of the main places around to get your helicopter serviced for example. Complete and utter joke but sadly not unique on this island.

 

[Roger Cole]

I try not to think about this sort of stuff as it just makes me angry. My other obsession in life outside of work has been motor racing. My local track Thruxton almost famous for its restrictions on track activity (90dB limit for track days, very few meetings per year etc.), all the limitations in place to reduce noise for local residents despite being right next door to the busiest road in the south west and having an active air field right in the middle of the track. Its one of the main places around to get your helicopter serviced for example. Complete and utter joke but sadly not unique on this island.

It seems that no matter what one has for a hobby, there is someone who objects to it and wishes everyone else would just sit at home mindlessly watching TV as they do.

I'm a private pilot and the objection to the airport brings to mind battles we have here to keep airports without commercial service open. People knowingly buy a house near an airport, maybe under the traffic pattern, then complain about noise. The vast majority of the time the airport was there long before the houses and housing grew up around once-rural airports. A developer knowingly built houses there, people knowingly bought them, then complain. I just recently got interested in getting active in ham radio again, something I've been involved with off and on since 1977. Battles with housing development covenants and restrictions on antennas continue unabated and the American Radio Relay League is currently backing legislation that would address and improve this situation for many. I was careful when I bought my house that there were no such restrictions and no mandatory HOA.

 

[RobC]

I knew someone living in the countryside running a small holding with a few sheep, cattle, chickens and a cockerel. Some townies retired to the neighbouring property and immediately complained to the council about the noise of the cockerel crowing at dawn. The council told the small holder he had to silence the cockerel. The worlds gone mad.

 

[Roger Cole]

That at least would never go in a rural area here.

I can sympathize a bit because I grew up in the country and then the neighbor got a rooster that I used to want to strangle and make chicken soup of every morning for a while. But I solved the problem with some cheap foam earplugs. I didn't need to complain to the neighbor much less local government.

 

[Ai Print]

"And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on".....

 

[peter k.]

++10

 

[NJH]

Lol nice kitty. Roger the situation you described is widely felt to be exactly what has happened at the south wests two race tracks, Castle Combe and Thruxton. Shame as there both local to me and amongst my favourite tracks anywhere, Thruxton in particular.

Fingers crossed for Ilford.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I've been digging around the Internet again and discovered that the appeal is moving along

http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk...7M&query=96b7bdca-89c2-46d3-91e8-3cff712a9117​

with a decision by Cheshire East Council targeted for the 26th of this month. My best wishes to HARMAN's landlord for getting approval of the revised plan!

It seems I'd confused an appeal to the Secretary of State of initial rejection with what turns out to have been a revised application to Cheshire East Council that included fewer housing units. Cheshire East Council has now rejected HARMAN's landlord's revised application as well.

I've been unsuccessful in uncovering anything on line about the Secretary of State appeal. It would be helpful if those in the UK can link to anything that describes the process as well as information on the status of this particular appeal. Thanks in advance.

 

[Chris Livsey]

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/CaseSearch.aspx

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3027388&CoID=0

In progress, not yet decided.

 

[mr rusty]

In progress, not yet decided.

It's a bit complicated because there are 2 applications running side by side.

the original included I think 350 houses. Turned down by Cheshire East (local) council - now being appealed at national level
application #2 for 290 houses just turned down by local council - may get appealed separately.

It's all politics. The local councillors rely on local votes, and hence don't want to upset the local residents who tend to have a very local view of what should or should not happen. For some reason in the UK a vociferous minority usually appear who are against all development, usually overlooking that development usually brings increased local amenities (shops etc).

Time will tell, but it's a "brown field" site and government policy is to build more houses, so my guess is that eventually government will override local decisions, and the local councillors will be able to say "don't blame us - wasn't our decision". Cynical? Moi?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3027388&CoID=0

In progress, not yet decided.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for! Now I'll be able to track it in the coming months.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It's a bit complicated because there are 2 applications running side by side.

the original included I think 350 houses. Turned down by Cheshire East (local) council - now being appealed at national level
application #2 for 290 houses just turned down by local council - may get appealed separately.

It's all politics. The local councillors rely on local votes, and hence don't want to upset the local residents who tend to have a very local view of what should or should not happen. For some reason in the UK a vociferous minority usually appear who are against all development, usually overlooking that development usually brings increased local amenities (shops etc).

Time will tell, but it's a "brown field" site and government policy is to build more houses, so my guess is that eventually government will override local decisions, and the local councillors will be able to say "don't blame us - wasn't our decision". Cynical? Moi?

Wouldn't the local NIMBYs be crestfallen if your Secretary of State decides in the developer's favor on the current appeal, thereby approving 350 houses? They could have accepted the reduced number last week instead, but wanted everything their way. In my opinion, such a scenario would be poetically just.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I think the NIMBY objection is to any housing on the site not to an actual number, If I was cynical I would expect 350 to be rejected on appeal then 250 approved on a subsequent appeal if they splash some more cash, the refusal grounds are a bit thin IMHO:

http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/...ejects_Ilford_homes_proposal_for_second_time/

 

[RobC]

here we go again. Just wait until the final whistle. You have no influence unless you're directly involved in one way or another.

 

[Chris Livsey]

here we go again. Just wait until the final whistle. You have no influence unless you're directly involved in one way or another.

I am not looking to have any influence I am commenting on publicly available information, I would try the "final whistle" comment on the Ferrania thread, would you suggest no more posts until the film is actually in hand?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You have no influence unless you're directly involved in one way or another.

But as users of Harman products, we do have an interest. Nothing wrong with following the process.

Ken