PLANS for a restaurant on land next to Rainhill train station have been knocked back due to the "harm" which would be caused to "designated heritage assets".

Proposals were submitted seeking permission for a restaurant and associated parking spaces off Station Road, Rainhill.

The application, drawn up by agent Mike Carr on behalf of applicant Mr I Mawdsley, was received by the council on January 17.

Plans said the proposed site has been vacant for 18 months and that previous uses have included car sales and storage.

Five parking spaces would have been created under the plans and the application stated there would be two full-time and six part-time employees at the restaurant.

Proposals stated "the planning application proposes a development that would bring this vacant site back to a viable use, meaning that it would contribute towards the regeneration of the site and its setting".

Plans added the restaurant would "introduce a new building and use that is consistent with surrounding land uses" adding "it is considered that the proposals for the site will provide a significant public benefit".

However, planning officers refused permission for the restaurant citing the impact upon heritage assets in the locality.

Rainhill Parish Council and Rainhill Civic Society had raised concerns over the proposed plans.

The civic society's objections included over the design of the proposed building and its effect upon heritage sites and the area being already "overpopulated with parking".

The civic society added: "We are keen to see the development of this site and feel some design changes could positively impact the historic setting and enhance the character of the Conservation Area".

In the council's decision notice, case officer John Van Eker said: "The proposed development, by virtue of its design and prominent location, would result in an incongruous form of development which would detract from the significance of designated heritage assets including Rainhill station, Skew Bridge and Rainhill Conservation area".

They added: "No public benefits have been demonstrated which would outweigh the less han substantial harm to the designated heritage assets".