Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SankeyPimpernel

  • Rank
  1. I'd assume the strength of community argument / objections / past history with GW would significantly mitigate a judge passing costs on. In addition I heard someone mention early on in this thread about a community getting legal aid in a York case. Don't know what that was but it's something for the SSVP group to explore.
  2. How do you know they would become personally liable when don't even know legally what they're doing?
  3. *** Peter T (Taylor?) Now you are being silly. I doubt that the planet will exist as we know it in 1000 years time. Just what are you going to feed these 6 million people on? *** Look at Africa....you can't stop people breeding unless you wanna be a communist state...population density = Japan (Tokyo). Current growth in Warrington (which incidentally has dropped) = 3%. My calculation is a none compounded calculation over all those years, hence very conservative. There is significant land per head in the world, it would supirse you. Yes a thousand years is a long time. more advancement (moores law to agriculture can apply) GM crops will happen. Ever seen the sleeper (woody allen), funny film, giant sized bananas etc...It's likely there will be a migration from the equator if Global Warming continues. From memory UK is set to become tropical, I can see those giant bananas now But seriously the population growth / migration would still give the same result. Look at: http://www.population-growth-migration.info/ CTRL F, type: warming. Not silly, just facts. -- Dizzy, I'm not part of the group organising the solicitor, I don't know the coverage of the protection, therefore not sure whether woodland is included. I did ask about WBC <> consultation ref what they're doing to SVP and can it be done without, they're fully aware of that scenrio and advise that to avoid a counter they can do this without...It probably can be done for free, same as transferring a house deed, but like anything it's time somebody would have to have. Your always advised never to write your own will so I guess the same applies here. I've just advised them to contact the woodland trust, (they have alerted them before over what was happening to SVP)....good tip, thanks! I agree, people who don't use it or live further away will probably not care or not know about the issue. If I'd of known about WaltonG, I would have objected, so there maybe a few out there like me. -- BazJ They have demonstrated difference, but it is greed. I don't have access to their accounts and care not to look them up, but the park is busy enough to cover increases in taxes. They can up their prices to reflect overheads etc. If indeed they where struggling, expanding is not a solution as this gives a larger business, with more overheads "bank costs on loans" & staff etc. Effectively you end up with a bigger business with bigger problems, (just like the dry bulk shippers have today). Therefore my thoughts are they're making more than enough money if they have the ability to expand, they where to spend circa ?15m themselves. They either have cash in hand or good accounts or both to reflect the magnitude of potential borrowing from a bank. It's therefore, in my book, defined as greed if they have the ability to borrow so much, or have the cash or combination. Therefore they must have more than enough money to have a better lifestyle than most. They should be happy with that, not take a good portion of park from the public. Assuming they got what they wanted, lets call this Phase 2 for them, 10 years goes by, Phase 3 they can buy the rest of SVP...At what point would you call it greed? -- http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com/ http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/
  4. --- Dizzy: Anyway is this the story you mean? It mentions the golf club and academy etc but no mention of it being sold. There could be more mention of it in the advisory groups documents and suggestios/plans that were submitted to the council's exec board recently but I'm not reading through that lot just for a golf course --- Yes to that, commercial hub, bar and learning...I'm not sure what the full implications are but councillors hope the park will remain...time will tell. Hopefully the Save Walton Gardens Group are up to speed on the full implications. -- Gullivers land own part of the ancient woods, even though they own it there would be oposition from me if they want to hack it down, only 10% of england is woods when most of it 90% used to be. Whatever is left must be retained, we should be grateful we have some of this in a Warrington park. Basically this land should not of been sold to them. The woods are a great environment for wildlife. Also my belief is SSVP solicitor is not being used for advice but to put, what I assume is protection in place, this would never be free. From what I've gathered the cost is a fixed quote from the solicitor to do the job in hand. Note: The SSVP strategy is being redeveloped, a new proposal could be submitted any time after that. Planning windows can be quite small (14 days). So time isn't really a luxury to let it pass by. Hence the imputus now. I have donated and don't care if GW never make another proposal, I prefer peace of mind, at the end of the day my donation is small on the scheme of things. If anything WBC should be chipping in with cash,"Big Society" has spoken, we're supposed to be in charge of what happens now aren't we? Or is this another thinly veiled slogan to make us think we live in a democracy....let us see how this unfolds. There's already been a failure on Big Society in some rural village, which is now having low radiation waste dumped in a nearby landfill. Strike 1. From the GW perspective, is it socially acceptable to have a fairground resort expanding in such an area. I look at Alton Towers, Orlando etc. they have swathes of land between their developments & residents. Here they're 50m-75m from residents back gardens, as a planner would you have ever planned a permanent fairground park in such a location. In addition the park was originally a Chilrens Adventure Playgroud (we can accept that, I guess the origianl planners did), so this type of expansion was never originally in the scope. GW's biggest ride was initially built without planning permission! The recent proposed expansion was just Pure Greed. It disgusts me that someone whould take parkland from the public for any venture, I have know respect for idiots like this. For everyone involved in this, they just got carried away working out how they could use some free money from central government. Is this the best they could come up with to use ?15m of tax payers money. Surely we could of come up with a ?15m development for the Omega Site to create jobs with skills with opportunities to create careers. Oh and SVP will need to cater for at least 6,000,000 in 1000 years time, a 30 fold population increase. That means our houses will potentially be 25-35 floor mini skyscraper buildings. Planners need to plan for that eventuality and retain the park facilities, we don't have much as it is.
  5. Ilive in Warrington and read in the Warrington Guardian paper in the first long bank holiday we had this year that it was sold for effectively golfing development, that's why I asked the question again. I have no secret knowledge and commend the Save Walton Gardens group for all the efforts they've made. I give all my best wishes to anyone anywhere in the country saving parks and forests. I am 110% against these type of sell offs as I believe the public & wildlife have a right to this based on fundamental laws of existence on a planet. I could ramble on all day about this...... I'm not trying to cause any issues. I don't tend to read the local or national papers often, maybe once every 6 months unless something specific is brought to my attention. ..... or are you just trying to get people up in arms about Walton Hall and Gardens again to help your cause A BIG fat NO to this...how this would help my cause in saving SVP I don't know. Incidentally I was at Walton Gardens a couple of weeks ago as I'd not been their for some time, i specificaly went to see the place before, what I was expecting, was future up and coming changes. I wanted to the the place before these changes occured. I'm not understanding why everyone seems to be be attacking each other on this forum. If I've still got the newspaper somewhere I'll try to post up on a blog what was in the paper. See my thoughts about sell offs here: http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/
  6. I did not know it was birthed by the Lib Dems. As mentioned previously I'm not affiliated with any political party. My allegiance is with the residents. As far as I'm aware most are networking via the FB site. The Lib Dems have full awareness of the residents thoughts, so if they did indeed championed the proposal then they can get stuffed. However it is the residents administering the FB site, NOT the Lib Dems. Also, can I just confirm with a previous poster (if he reads this), Walton Gardens was going to be made into a Hotel, this was canned. Then it was supposedly sold several weeks ago to be made into a golf club and retain the park. Was this second sell off canceled or where you getting confused with the Hotel phase being canceled? Just need to be sure. Please Donate on savesankeyvalleypark.com to assist in our solicitor fees for protecting SVP for the future, as this is not over.[/b]
  7. Unfortunately the first I heard about it was when it was apparently sold....I didn't know that the developers backed out of the Walton Gardens buyout......that's FANTASTIC news! Walton Gardens is a superb park and I'm glad to hear it's remained in public hands, especially when some of the team managing the sell off where tentative on whether they'd secured the park for future permanent public use.
  8. LOL. Your clearly out of touch on how this campaign took off, I don't blame you for this as your not a direct local resident to the park. The Lib Dems where the first to notify the residents of the GW / WBC SVP Proposal / Strategy via leafleting. They had already set up the FB group before the residents where notified. When I found out there where already 1000+ members. I also suspect that it was used as part of the campaign due to the NWRDA being already wound down, as I've already stated earlier. I have no political ties or any other form of link with any of the parties. I'm just very grateful for this being brought to our attention, for one thing it's not over, only postponed. The community must make our voice heard on what we want for Warrington. Incidentally, did you object? If not then be ready to help us next time However, I also want to make it clear that the FB group is NOT political, it WAS used by the residents and the residents DO care, that's why we objected mate. Some set up our own blogs to assist people with info, including the savesankeyvalleypark.com website etc. If you care then donate through that web site, because some of us residents are also paying for a solicitor to help. Educate yourself and read through the whole of this thread, and other resident web sites, which are listed somewhere within the whole thread. Help Save SVP for the Warrington community before it eventually gets eroded away from commercialisation over the years and stop bickering like old ladies over who did what and give kudos to anyone who helps positively. We must remember recently what happened to Walton Gardens, sold off. In the future the owners could remove rights of access to the public unless you?re a golfer.........Lets not allow the last reasonable public park we have go.
  9. I just want to point out that the Lib Dems did a good thing to create the SaveSankeyValleyPark FaceBook Group. Much kudos for this. It assisted in bringing together the community to discuss opinions and allow the group to galvanise their objections to the proposal. Something which was significanlty negative to local residents, wildlife and the future population. One thing that is extemely key to SVP is it will be the only notable public park left in Warrington. A park which will have to cater for 3,000,000 in 1000 years time. I also hear of no other adjoining councils trying to sell off parts of their linear parks.... For now this SVP development may only be on hold, hence why many residents are still on guard. A situation in my opinion that is not acceptable. SVP must formally be declared a park by WBC and they should put it into a trust, life should just not be this way. Also the posters which have been stuck up are trivial considering the issues involved. Also a good portion of commendable volunteer litter pickers have been involved in the SaveSVP campaign, more than offsetting a handful of informative posters.
  10. The green way which has some level of protection has a propsed road & coach park to run at the back of peoples gardens to a joyous camp / caravan site "for now". It's proven that GW do change strategy on a dime and go off on atangent building what ever they fancy. A resident that has to endure a roller coaster that was built without planning permission, I live about 250m away. I feel for my fellow residents who live closer and have great respect for anyone else who carries the ability to use empathy. Alas there are many in the world who lack this skill. The council in this situation performed poorley and far below the expected standard expected by the public, their was no vis-a-vis consultation, despite objections to the planing desk. So based on at least this one past issue, I can't trust any development going forward in conjunction with GW / WBC. They can simply change strategy in the future, if the business fails and load up the land with more coasters. Note a councillor has mentionted, nothing will impact negatively on our residents. So that's at lease most of GW's proposal out of the window. As far as some posters on here have said there's effectively nothing of detriment to the woods going or bewsey meadows. I say have a moral chat with your conscience on behalf of the countless birds (inc. herons / owls etc.), bats, squirrels & butterflies that are part of the growing wildlife in the park. Would you like your home turfed up. There is much hidden wildlife using all areas of the proposal, some very unique animals to Warrington, it would be an imeasurable loss for all, bar GW $?$?$. Consider the safety aspects, perceptions by children out in a small gang, running along in a park and coming to a road in a park, oh a car has just taken little Timmy out. Why because he thought he was in a park.....duh. Dogs have even less sense ditto hedehogs. Consider the loss of the amenity and the council tax money paid over decades, do the public not deserve a park and land to use, no mystical entity floated down and pointed there finger at the council or government bequeathing them the right to do whatever they want. This is why the community have or should have rights to park land. If we start to loose this then we have to consider democracy and maybe capitalism starting to fail and whether we are truly being governed or dictated to? The linear park would be lost, the sliver of connection between the two sides of SVP would be the biggest joke in town. It's proven that wildlife performs best for breeding when land is not broken in such a way, consider hedgehog A / sliver of a path / road / Hedgehog B....It just doesn't work. Ancient parks decimated, oh dear. Once most of england was woodland, here in SVP we're lucky to be able to have a small sample of that woodland on our doorstep. It's great for children to explore such an environment. They can see wild bluebells in the woodland as well as a variety of birds. Owsl can be heard at nights by many residents. Bats fly the park. Herons etc use it. Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_woodland. Now one of the unexplored areas by SVP is probably wildlife breeding programs, getting other species or genetic diveristy into the park. Africa seem to be able to manage this, why not WBC. Maybe add some low cost landscaping etc. All perfectly acceptable to the community. A level of co-existence is already in place with GW, they have their park, it need improvements, some socially acceptable sound proofing required. They make their money, no need for them to become greedy and shaft the residents. They must operate in a socially acceptable manner and NOT impinge on the environment and residents more than they do so at the moment. There is sometimes a line which if you cross it's just not acceptable. Also consider the future population beyond your life because by my calculation against documented Warrington growth rates, in 500 years we go from 200,000 to 3,000,000 people using a none compound calculation. Consider the next 500 years and we have a 15,000,000 residents. A god dam metropolis. Now use google maps and look at say Tokyo check the parks, yes they've got some. Also some are of pure woodland. Now consider another government / local council cash crunch in say 10 years (usually the cycle) and the remainder of SVP sold off. Get the picture.......the line is drawn. So if your reserved in judgment now, you must consider that future a likely possibility, probability and selloff capability. SVP is the backbone of the community, it connects us to each other and to retail outlets. There are so many policies and ownerships protecting land that it's ludricous for GW to contemplate submitting a planning application. Something would start to whiff if these policies start to get squashed. The public has already fought the battle for the forests and we're prepared to do the same for the parks. This is only a proposal and if I was a WBC planner specifically focusing on planning aspects, looking at the policies, words I've wrote here, "for lawyers", evidence of wildlife is in the wildlife signs that WBC have errected around the park, public will give verbal testimonies, + photos the public are taking now etc..how could they not protect the park? There would be much outrage. I have requested WBC notify all residents within 200 meters or greate and publish at least a full page advert in the Warrnigton Guardian, so fundamental is the change. Oh did you know WBC would plough between ?10.5m - ?16m into this, I think my money can be spent better, keeping more worthwhile services running, paying down debt maybe, centrak government has a bit of that ^^. Read some more if interested here: http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/ Get on board with protecting what the community have.
  • Create New...