Jump to content

Secret Gypsy transit sites


Recommended Posts

Tell you what Steve, why not publish those sites which have been dismissed as unsuitable?  You are supposed to represent us yet behaviour like this make it look like you don't think we are intelligent enough to have any say in the matter.  Are you all so superior?  If no residences whatsoever will be affected where is the harm in a shortlist as it shouldn't, by your reasoning, be detrimental to anyone?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised someone else hasn't done that already Gary especially after more reports saying that the council are insistent they they wont 'tell' even under FOI requests etc.

All it would take was a note on paper posted to the press or left lying about for prying eye to see.  Guess those in the know are clearly worried about the effects if may have on the elections even though I'm sure non of it is being discussed by one political party's representatives.

Should we run a forum sweep stake on the most likely spots of land according to google earth imagery ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'd forgotten (or never knew) that was known as Beech House. Now if you'd said 31A Winwick Street....

 

I did go in when it was derelict, and it was in a very poor state. That in itself is no reason to demolish, but I presume the risk was real.

 

It faced south (no Central station when it was built), and (before town planners were around to stop it) other buildings were built side on to it.

 

Looking at Harry Wells' site, Heath House was demolished for Midland Way; with the old British Legion building on St Austins Lane (not much left after a fire), are they the only listed buildings in Warrington where, since the 1970s, the Council has actually sought demolition (for other than H&S reasons)? The point is that the accusation that the Council routinely allows "inconvenient" listed buildings to be demolished is total nonsense.

Sorry Steve and yes I should perhaps have put it's address (31a Winwick Street) but as most people always refer to it by its name of 'Beech House' it never occurred to me to do that.  Apologies...

 

From the photo's I've seen of it over the years I agree it did look quite run down but then from the sounds of it it seems nothing was ever done to prevent it's further decline.  Surely that is the point of having listing status ie to PROTECT :(    I sometimes wonder what the point is anymore if private owners or council owners are simply allowed to leave things to rot until it's just too late.

 

Hairy Well's website is superb and he has recorded so much of Warrington over the years that has now gone.  Good job there are people like him about.  

 

I didn't' know about the legion on St Austing Lane burning down.   I must go and look on his site for that and I'll also try and find the list my late mum helped compile about Warrington's buildings which had been demolished or 'lost' by other 'means'.    She did it around the time Stockton Heath Primary School (locally listed) was earmarked to be demolished for no other reason that the council wanted to build their brand new substandard

replacement school building in it's place !!

 

Anyway...it was a long list if I remember rightly

Link to post
Share on other sites

A typical response from the council as usual... lying cheating scheming back handed deals to protect their own interests and not to upset their potential vote share when it comes to the ones in power...

 

Steve, this council and the ones before it have stood by and watched as the heart and soul and heritage of this town has been ripped out and thrown aside. There are many avenues open to councils to punish builders that "accidentally" knock down inconvenient buildings, but the council choose not to use them. There a;so appear to be far to many "convenient" fires too which should also warrant investigation in my opinion....

 

As for the site of the gypsy transit camp, I have plenty of ideas; the middle of Gatewarth tip, Liverpool, Widnes or Manchester. Why should this town be blighted with these criminal gangs that exploit the elderly, rob from shops (both myself and PJ have seen this first hand before you start on the usual defence of the gypsy lines).... you as councillors should be trying to protect the town from these people, not actively encouraging them

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'd forgotten (or never knew) that was known as Beech House. Now if you'd said 31A Winwick Street....

 

I did go in when it was derelict, and it was in a very poor state. That in itself is no reason to demolish, but I presume the risk was real.

 

It faced south (no Central station when it was built), and (before town planners were around to stop it) other buildings were built side on to it.

 

Looking at Harry Wells' site, Heath House was demolished for Midland Way; with the old British Legion building on St Austins Lane (not much left after a fire), are they the only listed buildings in Warrington where, since the 1970s, the Council has actually sought demolition (for other than H&S reasons)? The point is that the accusation that the Council routinely allows "inconvenient" listed buildings to be demolished is total nonsense.

Steve, could you please explain what exactly happened to the old Grammar School building whilst it was in the care of the Council?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, could you please explain what exactly happened to the old Grammar School building whilst it was in the care of the Council?

 

I'm dying to hear the old excuse about it being unsafe etc etc.... that is the usual lies they peddle about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, could you please explain what exactly happened to the old Grammar School building whilst it was in the care of the Council?

I'd very much like to know that too, I seem to recall reading that the press and others were not allowed inside to take photos as a record prior to it's demolition too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dying to hear the old excuse about it being unsafe etc etc.... that is the usual lies they peddle about it

 

 

I'd very much like to know that too, I seem to recall reading that the press and others were not allowed inside to take photos as a record prior to it's demolition too.

What needs to be answered is how did it wind up in such a state that it needed to be demolished if it was in the care of such wonderful custodians????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really want to pile in on this as I'm glad to see a councillor posting here and wish more of them had the, er, necessary to do the same, t&cs notwithstanding.

 

However, I find this phraseology extremely telling of perceived attitudes:

 

"...the Ship fell down..."

 

Yeah, just like many buildings tend to do. It's hard to travel around this town without seeing some random building somewhere suddenly collapse (usually and happily, without anyone in the way to be maimed or injured); so, move along please folks, nothing to see here....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really want to pile in on this as I'm glad to see a councillor posting here and wish more of them had the, er, necessary to do the same, t&cs notwithstanding.

 

However, I find this phraseology extremely telling of perceived attitudes:

 

"...the Ship fell down..."

 

Yeah, just like many buildings tend to do. It's hard to travel around this town without seeing some random building somewhere suddenly collapse (usually and happily, without anyone in the way to be maimed or injured); so, move along please folks, nothing to see here....

 

It's a problem isn't it? A lot of statements and policies that emanate from the council don't stand close scrutiny so it's not surprising more councillors don't stick their neck out like Steve does in an attempt to defend the indefensible. As a point of comparison, if I suddenly announced that a building I owned and which was in the way of me making some money but was subject to planning restrictions suddenly fell down while I was just standing there looking at it from a safe distance in a hard hat, I'd be dealing with both H&S and planning law courtesy of the council. When a developer does exactly the same thing however, even with listed buildings, then we're just told to move along while the council sits on its hands.   

Question is whether councillors actually believe the BS they feed us or whether it's doublethink or something else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are places where, when you illegally clear a listed building for your own ends, they tell you to build the thing back up again at your own expense, this was recently the case with the Carlton Tavern in West London.

Then there are other places where, when you roll up on a Sunday morning and level a listed pub which is standing in the way of a planned multi million pound development they say 'Oops, butterfingers!' and fine you £8,000 and a monkey for costs.

Guess which category Warrington falls into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our best hope is a gentleman who is currently being denied sight of the cat unless he signs a legal document to say he won't tell the electors anything about it, and especially not inform them who's garden it's going to crap in.

 

It's come to something when we have to rely on a professional irritant to let us know what is going on in our own town. I see Russ Bowden is keeping very quiet right now about the council's open and transparent culture. No doubt he'll pop back up with his usual drivel at some point in time when the council hasn't got anything too serious to hide.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

..............Anyway, the Council has changed its brief so that the site can't be near residential property. That raises the definition of "near" - for Appleton residents (like Cllr Bennett) I suspect the idea of "near" might be rather broad..

 

Steve, can you pinpoint any area of land in Appleton which could be a possible traveller transit site?

You must know that most open land in Appleton is already earmarked for future housing development and most is owned by HCA who are extremely unlikely to give up any land with such huge potential profits.

 

If as you say "near" might be rather broad, you might bear in mind that the wider area already has three traveller sites, two of which,  Grappenhall and Stretton  are permanent and Walton which has just come to the end of it's second ten year term and is expected to apply for a further term.

 

Your words imply that Appleton residents wouldn't want a traveller transit site anywhere 'near' them. You have obviously not considered that having a transit site in the area might lead to HCA being unable to sell their land to developers and that a transit site with the retention of some surrounding green fields might actually be a preferred option to a concrete jungle of housing development.

 

  Furthermore your cheap political sniping at Cllr Bennet is more likely to win votes for him rather than you! 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...