Jump to content

Sha

Members
  • Content count

    1,053
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Everything posted by Sha

  1. Too important to get lost in the archive. - Answers still needed. “Green Belt homes plan is madness” By David Skentelbery on 15th August 2017 7:00 am News, Village Life OUTRAGED councillors at Appleton say they are horrified at proposals to build more than 9,000 houses on Green Belt land in South Warrington. The plans will mean that all fields in Appleton will be built over, the character of Stretton and Appleton Thorn villages and the landscape of Higher Walton will be destroyed forever, they say. Cllr Judith Wheeler (pictured) said: “It is madness to destroy beautiful countryside with some of the highest landscape value in Warrington. “If the Green Belt has to go, it should be where the land is unattractive and has no amenity value and that means not all of south Warrington. “The town would be made poorer by the loss of this countryside. It is not just local people who love their area, many from across the town appreciate the green space on their doorstep. “Just take a walk, cycle or drive through the area and you realise that putting all our fields under concrete is criminal.” Cllr Wheeler says that with the exception of the Omega development, most of northern and eastern Warrington will be largely untouched by the plans. Yet the area is equally suitable and more sustainable. “The 2017 Government White Paper on Housing states that ‘maintaining existing strong protections for the Green Belt, and clarifying that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements’. “There are dozens of brownfield sites in Warrington that should be developed first before turning to other areas. “Fiddlers Ferry is a potentially vast area that could contribute to Warrington’s housing needs and this does not appear to have been considered in the council’s plans. “Regenerate the town centre, make it an attractive place to visit – it isn’t at the moment. “Build on the brownfield and then, if Warrington is still an employment boom town, needing more housing, move onto the greenfield sites, put the infrastructure in and we will accept our share of housing.” Cllr Wheeler says the council talks of a “garden city” – but says she has yet to meet anyone, anywhere in Warrington, who wants the town to become a city. “A prosperous and attractive town yes, a city no.”” Positron on 15th August 2017 9:03 am 9:03 am When city status is some councillors’ mindseye there is no limit to what they will do; regardless of the aims and objectives of the people who elected them and whose interests they are supposed to represent and put into effect. It is increasingly clear there is a world of difference between what the people of Warrington want and what their supposedly elected representatives say they should have. Barbara Kandu on 16th August 2017 7:18 am 7:18 am She may not have mean’t it to sound as such but Cllr Wheeler’s quote is the best example of a NIMBY yet; “most of northern and eastern Warrington will be largely untouched by the plans. Yet the area is equally suitable and more sustainable”. In other words build anywhere except Appleton. She is obviously blissfully unaware of the 1300 houses on Omega, 1900 on Chapelford, 155 on Dawson House, 100 on Lingley Mere, 99 on Gemini – I could go on. Sankey’s character has already been lost due to mass development and roads in the area are heavily congested so its perhaps time that Appleton and Stretton took some inevitable development. Sha on 16th August 2017 1:17 pm 1:17 pm Cllr Judith Wheeler is not being a ‘nimby’, she is a political careerist playing pathetic party-political point-scoring games and all this ‘horror’ and ‘outrage’ is just hypocritical. Cllr Wheeler and fellow SW Lib Dem councillor’s ‘campaign’, ‘HCA Rethink South Warrington’, now ‘Sustainable South Warrington’, misled local residents into believing that ‘previous permissions’ given to HCA meant that the developments couldn’t be stopped and that the best people could hope for was to ensure that adequate infrastructure was included. This is total rubbish! The ‘previous permissions’ have no bearing whatsoever on the present plans submitted. Councillor Wheeler’s arguments against the developments are merely political posturing. Note in the above article she says, “not all of South Warrington” and “put the infrastructure in and we will accept our share of housing”. Who is she referring to when she says ‘we’? her political comrades perhaps but certainly not the residents of South Warrington, the majority of whom don’t want to lose any green land to housing. And, why should we? The ridiculous housing targets put forward in the draft local plan are not ‘being forced upon us by central government’ as has been implied but are merely the result of local politicians (of all parties) ‘fantastical, aspirations’ for ‘New City status’. Cllr Wheeler says she “has yet to meet anyone, anywhere in Warrington, who wants the town to become a city”. Truthfully, that should have been ‘any member of the public’ – because she will certainly have met many councillors who do crave ‘New City status’. BARBARA, do not be taken in by wily politicians. This setting up of a North / South divide is a commonly used ‘divide and rule’ tactic, it is to try to prevent the various areas of the town uniting – because united we can easily get these horrendous housing targets scrapped. There is enough land, including brownfield and plots which already have permission, to meet Warrington’s needs for housing well into the future. The ridiculously high targets in the draft plan are not needed and are certainly not wanted by the people of Warrington – and we don’t need to accept them! Don’t be fooled into believing that the proposed developments are ‘inevitable’. No greenbelt /green fields need to be lost anywhere in our town. Wherever they are they are precious, not just to the people who live close to them but to everyone, they are the ‘breathing lungs’ of our town and our survival depends on them. Cllr Steve Parish on 17th August 2017 8:27 am 8:27 am There is some confusion here. Any aspiration for Warrington to be designated a city rather than a town is not a priority for most councillors. Providing housing is. There really is not that much brownfield land left. We bemoan the loss of major manufacturing in the town – but every former steelworks is covered with housing. But the government came up last year with promoting “garden villages, towns and cities” which would get special government support. Technically the proposed area at Appleton would be a “garden village” (under 10000 homes) but the concept of garden cities is a familiar one (Hampstead, Welwyn, Letchworth) that arose from the ideas of Ebenezer Howard (Ebenezer the garden city geezer) The council has resisted greenfield development (e.g. Peel Hall) but (a) we need more housing and (b) the law is on the developers’ side. I could point out that Cllr Wheeler’s party was in government when the planning system was shredded to encourage more development, particularly housing, so “the default answer to a planning application is yes”. Positron on 17th August 2017 6:09 pm 6:09 pm It has been evident for a long time Steve, that city status has been seen as a prize worth having in the minds of some, if perhaps not all on the Council. Hasn’t Terry O’Neill been reported as keenly seeking city status for the town? He has also been reported as saying, in the context of borough wide traffic congestion, something like “Not a single house will be built until the infrastructure problems are resolved”. Most reasonable people in Warrington recognise the need for more housing, particularly affordable and social housing, but those presently living here also know from their daily journeys that the town’s infrastructure, not the individual localised infrastructures for developments scattered across the borough, has been a pressing priority for several years (decades?). Why have successive administrations pressed ahead so long approving (and apparently encouraging as you say) development after development whilst paying at best scant regard for the infrastructure? Positron on 17th August 2017 8:52 pm 8:52 pm Having just read the Local Plan Consultation documents and followed that with a very brief examination of the website, I think you should seriously reconsider your assurance Steve that any aspiration for Warrington to be designated a city rather than a town is a low priority for most councillors. The website documents contains such phrases as “Overall approach – Warrington New City…Warrington Garden City Suburb” “..delivery of Warrington New City” But any doubts on this score are dispelled in this comment: “The Council believes planning for this [the preferred option] level of growth provides a unique opportunity for Warrington to make the transition from New Town to New City…”(sic) It seems this present administration like some of its predecessors has some questions to answer. Sha on 17th August 2017 11:16 pm 11:16 pm There is no confusion here CLLR STEVE PARISH, other than that which you are trying to cause. As POSITRON has pointed out, there is ample evidence that seeking ‘City Status’ is a priority for WBC – and supported by many councillors. Providing housing is a priority – but the housing proposed is not the type of housing needed by the people of Warrington. A quick look on Rightmove will show you that there are plenty of homes up for sale & rent – the problem is that the people who need homes can’t afford them. They will be far less able to afford the £500.000 + or the ‘affordable’ £400,000 homes proposed! This “garden village” will be nothing but a dormitory estate for newcomers who work elsewhere. Re the ‘concept’ of the garden village – the ‘New Towns’ were supposed to incorporate these ideals and we all know what an off-target, cock-up became of that! You say, “the council has resisted greenfield development, e.g. Peel Hall”. I’d say, resisted up to now because if this site had been given permission then the ‘housing target’ card couldn’t be played to try to get permission on the SW sites. Peel Hall can be back on the agenda – and the ‘affordable need’ card pulled out at any time in the future. As for your trite, “the law is on the developer’s side”. You are attempting to use this as a scare tactic and like Cllr Wheeler attempting to mislead people into thinking there is no option but to accept these developments. It won’t work! I suggest you study up on recent planning policy and research recent case histories. There is no reason why the housing need of Warrington people cannot be met without encroaching on green land. There is enough brown belt sites and sites for which developers already have planning permission but have been allowed to ‘land bank’. Why don’t you just be upfront and say the real reason all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing to be built? Positron on 18th August 2017 7:57 am 7:57 am The affordable housing and social housing needs to be built within the environs of Warrington, not created by funding from developers in Warrington to assist Torus’ actions in neighbouring boroughs. Positron on 18th August 2017 2:09 pm 2:09 pm Where are you Cllr Steve Parish, we’re waiting for your reply? Cllr Steve Parish on 19th August 2017 11:45 pm 11:45 pm Reply to what? You seem to know better than councillors do what we want, even what we think. Councillors have little to do the calculations of housing need (because some councillors, mentioning no names or parties, would just say not in my ward). Anyway, talking about a “city” means nothing in terms of the local plan, and for those who want to know the government guidance, here you go: To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: •use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period •identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable1 sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land •identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 •for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target •set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. Sha on 20th August 2017 11:46 pm 11:46 pm CLLR STEVE PARISH. Are you for real? Do you seriously expect us to believe this twisted take on the truth? You say, “talking about a “city” means nothing in terms of the local plan,” so why is the housing target set so high? As you quoted; Govt guidance ……local planning authorities should: •set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. Warrington does not have a ‘need’ for the amount of housing proposed and most certainly no ‘need’ for the type of housing proposed for Appleton, Stretton, Grappenhall. However, WBC’s ‘approach’ is not just to deal with housing need it is geared to mass expansion to progress their aspirations to turn Warrington into a city. Central Government is not forcing mass expansion on us, it is WBC who are attempting to do that! As for your saying “Councillors have little to do (with) the calculations of housing need”. I can well believe that! but I can’t think of any reasonable excuse why they should not! We would expect that our councillors should be keeping a close eye on how housing need is calculated -to ensure that the calculations truly ‘reflect local circumstances’ and not just the aspirations of developers and members of the executive board and council officers. We would expect them to effectively scrutinise decisions. We would expect them to ensure that the public are informed of all proposals for the town’s future and to ensure that effective, public consultations are held. We would expect them to be putting in some time and effort to work for the interests of the people they are paid to represent! However, they all seem to be backing the ‘mass expansion’ plans which the vast majority of the people oppose. Now, STEVE, without any more bull****, can you just answer the question, “WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”
  2. NHS moan one - walk in centre

    Less than a week to get an appointment! Gosh, you're lucky! I recently had to wait over a month to speak to my GP over the phone!
  3. New Market ?

  4. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    Our new MP is not showing any signs of clashing with either - he appears to be 'sitting on the fence' - alongside all the councillors throughout the town. As for Andy Farrell, even though their 'aspirations for becoming a city' are all over the documents, he's just been in the news saying it's nothing to do with them wanting 'city status'.
  5. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    The figure given is 9,000 on actual designated green belt. This doesn't include the masses of agricultural land which will also disappear if the preferred development option is accepted. It's complete madness! - especially as the homes built will be in the council tax band D bracket! The developments would include a few 'Affordable' homes, at 20% less than market value in the area; so will start at around £400,000, which is circa 17.5 x the average salary in Warrington. Employment opportunities will be provided nearby, in the acres of warehouses (also on green belt).
  6. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    It may or may not be a consideration but not the main part. CLLR STEVE PARISH seems to have disappeared, without answering my question, "WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”
  7. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    The ww news item on the extended consultation, probably most 'hot' issue in Warrington at the moment gets relegated to archives after less than 24 hours?
  8. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    The green belt boundary isn't clearly defined. The boundary of the ancient woodland isn't even clearly defined - in the above map it's chopped off at both ends! Like I said the designations on the plan are 'all to cock'. The problem with the present proposals, not just for this area but for the whole town is that 'the 'housing needs figure' has been more than doubled. It doesn't even reflect genuine housing 'need', Warrington desperately 'needs' genuinely affordable housing / social housing. None of the housing planned for Appleton is genuinely affordable. As 'affordable' is 80% of market price in the area the so called 'affordable' houses here will start at circa £400K. I don't think there is any real 'need' to sacrifice any green fields anywhere in the town as there is enough brownfield, and land which already has permission but which developers have 'land banked'. With regards to Appleton, there are enough commuter / dormitory estates of 'aspirational' housing and a lack of genuinely affordable and social housing. Still waiting for CLLR STEVE PARISH to answer my question, "WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”
  9. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    For the most part, the areas outlined for development in South Warrington in the LDP proposals are designated Greenbelt. What you call 'the New Town acquisitions assigned for future release' have no designation on these WBC maps, but as small pockets of green land within greenbelt I doubt they could be treated as other than greenbelt with regard to any proposals to develop them. Any previous permissions or designations by the New Town are irrelevant to the present proposals. The New Towns programmes ended years ago and Warrington already reached it's NT growth target so there wouldn't have been any need to release this land anyway. N.B. The designations in the above map are 'all to cock' anyway!
  10. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    I think a common sense approach like that Davy51 would be understood by most people but unfortunately not by the 'powers that be'.
  11. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    Confused52 Not sure what you mean when you say "The area within the boundary of the New Town is not Green Belt according to case law." could you explain please?
  12. tunnel

    Next to the where the Friar Penketh pub has been built, directly opposite the old theatre there used to be a tiny pub. In that pub there were steps leading down to what you first might expect to be a cellar but was in fact the entrance to a tunnel. The tunnel was about 5ft high, 3ft wide with old wooden supports and about 6-8ft in was blocked off with planks of modern type wood, you could see through gaps in the planks that the tunnel went further. I saw it in the 70's. I don't find it difficult to believe that there could have been tunnels under the town at some stage, but I don't think that they would have been dug by Cromwell's men - when would they have had the time? and why would they dig them? They came here to fight not hide. Rumour has it, that there was a tunnel from the academy to the parish church. I think any tunnels would far predate these. I think it's more likely that there were tunnels from the friary and from the parish church site - where there has been some kind of a church since circa 650 - both leading to the old Motte castle. So, by using these tunnels one could get from the friary to the church. These could have been the routes to safety for the religious orders if ever the town was attacked. The old Motte castle would have been where everyone in the town would have fled to safety. As for construction, I doubt they were 'hewn from rock'. They could have been made simply by digging trenches. putting the framework in and filling in above with a foot or two of soil. The purpose of these tunnels would merely have been to get them, unseen and protected to the castle. There were probably other tunnels from the friary surfacing in different locations around the town, giving them alternative escape routes should the friary be raided. The religious orders would be obvious targets for raids, having valuable icons etc and during the persecutions, considering the brutal deaths they would suffer if caught, it would seem to me stupid of them not to have devised some form of escape routes.
  13. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    I agree Davy51. A supermarket in Golden square would not only be useful for town centre dwellers, being close to the bus station it would be useful for shoppers using public transport. But I don't think there will be much effort by WBC to encourage public transport - the massive car parks are too much of a cash cow.
  14. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    CONFUSED52 The reason the Southern Expressway, the new high level bridge and the Howshoots link didn't get built was because no-one wanted to pay for them! An additional 20,000 + houses will certainly NOT "get us out of the mess we are in" it will only create a worse mess! and the new roads would not be being built if 20,000+ houses were not being built. Are you aware that WBC believe that there is no significant problem on Lumb Brook Road at present and that they believe that our local road network could cope with the proposed additional houses in Appleton without any highways improvements other than a few bus stops? City Status is irrelevant in general 'planning terms' but the LDP is very relevant and the 'aspirations of WBC for city status' are certainly not irrelevant to their LDP proposals. The mass expansion plans are not to support local need, they are to promote growth - to become a 'city'. Otherwise, how does WBC explain to the Government Inspector why the 'housing target' is so far over target! The Government does not want to be seen as 'the bad guy' (and lose votes) by forcing mass housing development where it is not wanted, so has included in planning guidance the direction that local authorities are to; "set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances". WBC's 'own approach' is mass expansion. Steve has attempted to make us believe that the Government is forcing this mass expansion upon us. This is incorrect, it is WBC who are doing that! The Government are hoping to get additional housing built by offering extremely generous 'sweeteners' to local authorities. They are providing an 'infrastructure fund' - on top of other 'sweeteners' such as the 'new homes bonus'. The infrastructure fund would pay for the new roads. So what is the future council tax income from the proposed band D houses so desperately needed for? I'm waiting for CLLR STEVE PARISH to answer the question.
  15. Green Belt homes plan is madness

    grey-man do you not suspect that there is a lot more to this than just the council 'wanting' to become a city council? Perhaps CLLR STEVE PARISH will enlighten us by answering the question; "WHAT IS THE REAL REASON all of you councillors – of all parties – are so desperate to promote the building of multi-thousands of band D housing?”
  16. New Market ?

    I also question the need to demolish the old one Obs, and we are not alone in this, CABE questioned the need for this new car park but their expert opinion was not heeded by either the planning department nor our 60 councillors. I also question the need to build a new market now that we have ample space to site this facility in the Golden Square. The Golden Square shopping area should be reserved for shopping, and is in close proximity to the bus station. A supermarket here would also be useful.
  17. Fire destroys Iconic Hive at Risley Reserve

    Well said Baz.
  18. Fire destroys Iconic Hive at Risley Reserve

    What makes you think it might be school kids Geoff? Were there any witnesses? The fire at Mr Smiths was blamed on kids – but they were found to be innocent. What motives could there be in burning down this viewing platform?
  19. Does anyone know where this 'burning well' is located? Celia Fiennes 1698 Cheshire and Lancashire (recollections of her travels) 2 mile off Wigon towards Warrington (wch was some of my way back againe but for ye Curiosity's sake I did,) is the Burning well wch burns like brandy; its a little sorry hole in one of ye grounds 100 yards from ye Road that Comes from Warrington to Wiggon just by a hedge or banck, its full of dirt and mud almost but the water Continually bubbles up as if it were a pott boyling wch is the spring or severall springs in that place; Nevertheless I felt ye water and it was a Cold Spring. Ye man wch shewed it me, wth a dish tooke out a good quantety of ye water and threw away and then wth a piece of Rush he lighted by a Candle yt he brought in a lanthorne, he set ye water in ye well on fire and it burn'd blewish just like spirits and Continued a good while, but by reason of ye great raines yt ffell ye night before ye spring was weaker and had not thrown off the raine water, otherwise it used to flame all over ye well a good height, now it burnt weaker; at last the wind blew out ye mans Candle and he severall tymes lighted ye bitt of Rush or splinter of wood by ye flame yt burnt in ye well. This is a little unaccountable; I apprehend its a sort of an unctious matter in ye Earth and soe through its veines the springs run wch Causes it so to burn, for I observ'd when they dug into ye banche and opened the sort of Clay or mudd, it burnt fiercer and more from ye well.
  20. Failed City of Culture bid

    A copy of the bid should be in the public domain - if Warrington won't give full details perhaps the 'city of culture' judges would?
  21. Failed City of Culture bid

    I replied on the news page, cut and pasted below. ".........Warrington has got cultural offerings which can be built on." That just about sums it up Gary! Anything of heritage / cultural value in Warrington gets demolished and built on! So not surprising that there are plenty of people who are presently negative about their home town. Nobody was fooled into believing this 'City of Culture' bid was anything other than to give the town some kind of 'distinctive' identity for a later bid for "City" status. Quote, Dan Price, "Warrington’s initial bid submission was founded on the borough’s rich industrial heritage, with themes focusing on its development and regeneration, while embracing its unique location, character and traditions." What's left of the town's 'rich industrial heritage'? except for the Cabinet Works, (now proposed as an 'area of development') and a few filthy, polluting factories, for which there are plans to hide / disguise prior to building housing estates alongside them. "Themes focusing on it's development and regeneration, while embracing its unique location..." highlight the real motivations behind the bid - a selling point for growth and mass development with the destruction of our last green fields. The supposed reference to the wire industry in the design of the grossly ugly new car park would not be in the least convincing of any interest in the town's history or culture - it more likely threw a monstrous 'spanner' in the works! As for 'character and tradition', - the 'character' of the town has been destroyed by the continued demolition of our heritage buildings and the erection of ugly, cheapo, tin-pot-tack. The so called 'regeneration' of the town centre will result in more grossly ugly buildings to completely overshadow the last neglected remnants of our once fine & exceedingly distinct heritage. The 'City of Culture' bid never stood a hope in hell's chance of being successful! As for the proposed bid for "City" Status - the key to winning is 'Distinctiveness' - for a town whose regeneration plans were refused the support of CABE - applying for an award for 'distinctiveness' will achieve nothing but countrywide ridicule!
  22. South Warrington Lib Dem's have a 'campaign' on Facebook to protest against the proposed developments at Appleton Cross (planning application number 2017/29930) and Grappenhall (planning application number 2017/29929). The Lib Dems have aided developers set the infrastructure in place in anticipation of these developments by supplying 100 extra pupil places at Stockton Heath Primary - it was the Lib Dem administration that overturned the original decision not to demolish and rebuild the old school - despite the fact that there were already 900 surplus primary places within a 2 mile radius. Stockton Heath Village has been 're-imaged' - more updated infrastructure in place and a 'selling point'. Also, an attempt was made by Lib Dem Councillor's to have a medical centre built on the open space/playing fields Bridge Lane - which if it hadn't been opposed by local residents would have meant the public paying the costs and enabled HCA's developers to get out of including one in these proposals. Also note, that with just one day to go before the development control meeting no-one from this so called 'campaign group' has yet registered to speak against either of these applications and Judith Wheeler, so called, 'leader of the campaign', who due to her involvement will not be able to vote, has not up to yet arranged a substitution for her seat on the development control committee! What a farce! this 'campaign' looks to be nothing other than a publicity stunt by political careerists! It will be interesting to see whether any 'opposition' they put up is actually relevant!
  23. Confused52, the reason for deferral of both planning applications was "pending local plan review", yes this is the "Local plan Preferred Development Options". The basics of which has been covered on the WWW news page - in the next 20 years - 24,000 more houses, 9,000 on Greenbelt land. Note, that in the last greenbelt review, the sites in Appleton & Grappenhall which the planning applications referred to are not classified Greenbelt. The relevance of the "Local plan Preferred Development Options" to these planning applications is that at the time of the meeting there was no up to date local plan and no details as to what Warrington's future housing targets would be. As reported on the news page, mass expansion of the town is the 'preferred option' and sites for development will be identified and there will be a public consultation exercise. I would be extremely surprised if the Appleton / Grappenhall sites are not earmarked for development. Being included for development in the "Local plan Preferred Development Options" would give some 'weight' to HCA'S applications - however, this does not mean that the proposals cannot be challenged. It would be hard to believe that on the night of the planning committee, members would be unaware of what was in the "Local plan Preferred Development Options". I wonder if any other developer could have an application 'deferred' until the balance is more in their favour?
  24. As reported on the news page the decision was deferred on both applications. Iv'e copied out my post on this article to save tying it all out again. I'm afraid, that what might be going on could be just theatrical, political point scoring - but really all parties singing from the same song sheet. Appleton / Grappenhall, Lib Dem councillors making a song and dance about a 'campaign to fight' the applications - but misleading objectors into believing that the 'previous consents' meant that the development couldn't be stopped and that the best that could be achieved was to ensure good infrastructure was included. This was incorrect as the 'previous permissions' related only to the previous plans (with loads of infrastructure). These were entirely different plans. The sites being split and HCA trying, by doing this, to get the housing without forking out for the infrastructure. As the myth of the 'previous permissions' being valid was widely believed, and having no up to date local plan, gives 'a presumption in favour of development', HCA, may have thought they would have it passed through 'on the nod', and they hadn't produced very good plans - misleading information, lack of information, unclear calculations etc. However, the proposals were challenged. The 'presumption in favour of development' can be challenged, and the developer has to prove that the 'benefits' not just outweigh but CLEARLY outweigh any negative issues. Which this application couldn't - and thus should have been refused. Any appeal by HCA could only have been decided on the circumstances that existed at the time of refusal - and I doubt it would have succeeded. On the other hand, if the plans had been passed - I think an objector’s appeal would have been won. The deferral of the application, gives HCA time to 'tidy up' the proposals and the 'awaited local decisions' may be in their favour and add weight to their application. Personally, I would think that there must be members who would have at least some idea of which way the 'local decisions' will go. Whatever, as the weight appeared clearly on the objector’s side at the meeting, I would have thought that a 'call in' to scrutiny might have been made regarding the deferral decision. I suppose we will all have to wait and see how it all unfolds.
  25. Pledge to Peace - will Warrington sign up?

    'typical councillor' = ignore public opinion & carry on regardless. I think there are probably more people, who think like me, that both the 'city' bids as they stand, are a bad idea. Would you need thousands of signatures on a petition before you could see this?
×