Jump to content
Sha

1,200 New Homes at Peel Hall

Recommended Posts

Sha    113

....................

And let's not forget, it was Kolin Dhillon of Satnam who had the housing targets in the core strategy more or less doubled when he challenged it through the courts. That affects the whole of Warrington, not just Peel Hall.

 

WHO set the housing targets in the core strategy which were so easily challenged through the courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

If I remember correctly WBC set targets which covered the whole Mid-Mersey area because the relevant housing market study is done jointly with Halton and St. Helens and they did not separate it out in to a Warrington only demand for the Local Plan. The law requires the demand to be by Local Authority area so they failed to meet the legal requirement. That is what caused only the part of the Local Plan based on the faulty assessment to be struck down. The court could not say what the targets should be, only that the law was not followed. The extra housing targets now are also down to WBC; wanting more council tax and Non Domestic Rates from the proposed New City project!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sha, I no longer have my own PC, mobile phone etc. as I'm taking a year's sabbatical - it's been even longer since I last posted on here. :) but I Hope that your questions have been answered in the above or during press interviews with the campaign team or on one of several Facebook sites that spring up to fight the various Santnam applications.

Colin Griffiths will not be idle at this moment in time but he has shown his incompetence time after time, however from time to time he has had his successes that have eaten away and moved his project on as described by Steve above when he was part of the challenge against WBC's Local Planning Strategy.

Unfortunately I know from the Rixton Clay Pigeon Shoot fiasco that incompetence if persistent can eventually lead to success :( so everyone needs to be vigilant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary    93
On 3/11/2017 at 10:56 AM, Geoffrey Settle said:

Hi Sha, I no longer have my own PC, mobile phone etc. as I'm taking a year's sabbatical - it's been even longer since I last posted on here. :) but I Hope that your questions have been answered in the above or during press interviews with the campaign team or on one of several Facebook sites that spring up to fight the various Santnam applications.

Colin Griffiths will not be idle at this moment in time but he has shown his incompetence time after time, however from time to time he has had his successes that have eaten away and moved his project on as described by Steve above when he was part of the challenge against WBC's Local Planning Strategy.

Unfortunately I know from the Rixton Clay Pigeon Shoot fiasco that incompetence if persistent can eventually lead to success :( so everyone needs to be vigilant

Good to see you back Geoff - hope you will be a regular contributor even during your sabbatical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gary said:

Good to see you back Geoff - hope you will be a regular contributor even during your sabbatical

Thanks Rock God - maybe we could meet up at Shelly's and I'll treat you to one of her delicious cakes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary    93
On 3/13/2017 at 0:35 PM, Geoffrey Settle said:

Thanks Rock God - maybe we could meet up at Shelly's and I'll treat you to one of her delicious cakes :)

Sounds like a plan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

Going back to the theme of the thread;  Satnam’s acquisition of the Peel Hall land.

Here's an interesting case - maybe something that will be of interest to the Save Peel Hall people.

 

"The Charity Commission, the regulator of charities in England and Wales, has concluded that the trustees of the Spiritualist Association of Great Britain were responsible for serious mismanagement in the way they disposed of the charity’s London property in 2010.

Re disposal of land.

30 March 2017. The Regulator has published a report of its statutory inquiry into concerns about the sale of the charity’s property at Belgrave Square. The Commission received information that the property was sold on for £21 million by its new owners, shortly after the charity had disposed of it for £6 million in December 2010.

The Commission first became aware of this in 2013, over 4 years after some of the events took place. The Commission’s report concludes that the trustees failed to fulfil their legal duties and responsibilities towards the charity, and that ‘the failures and breaches were not minor or technical in nature’ but ‘amount to basic and serious mismanagement’.

The report criticises the failure by the trustees to obtain a report from a surveyor who was suitably qualified as required under charity law for a disposal of this type. It finds that the trustees failed to seek independent specialist advice about how to ensure the charity would benefit from a possible post-sale increase in the value of the property if a change in the use of the property and/or enfranchisement was secured, as happened here. The inquiry’s view was that the charity should have known that a commercial company would only purchase the property if it had good reason to believe it would secure enfranchisement or successfully negotiate a change of use. The inquiry also concluded that the trustees failed to take proper account of concerns raised by the charity’s solicitor before the sale was completed."

 

 

The report criticises the failure by the trustees to obtain a report from a surveyor who was suitably qualified as required under charity law for a disposal of this type. It finds that the trustees failed to seek independent specialist advice about how to ensure the charity would benefit from a possible post-sale increase in the value of the property if a change in the use of the property and/or enfranchisement was secured, as happened here. The inquiry’s view was that the charity should have known that a commercial company would only purchase the property if it had good reason to believe it would secure enfranchisement or successfully negotiate a change of use. The inquiry also concluded that the trustees failed to take proper account of concerns raised by the charity’s solicitor before the sale was completed.

 

So, either some 'body' stands to profit from the Peel Hall development or some 'body' could be responsible for serious mismanagement?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil Sid    229
Quote

So, either some 'body' stands to profit from the Peel Hall development or some 'body' could be responsible for serious mismanagement?

Would it be wrong of me to ask if it would be the same "Body".

I will ask if the "body" that could possibly be responsible for serious mismanagement is still around? if not then it could be a case of "a big boy did it and ran away". In other words if a previous management team was responsible and who have now handed over the reigns to a new management team and "scarpered" , can the new management team be held responsible for the old teams actions and decisions?

Oh and the "body " that stands to profit will be Peel Holdings once they manage to acquire planning permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Sha,

I presume that you are trying to point a finger at the CNT as it was then. Unfortunately for your argument the CNT had a statutory duty to maximise returns on the disposal of assets. You are trying to make them guilty for obeying the law and that will not fly!

Recently Aldi tried to build a store on land north of Westbrook Way. There was a section 106 agreement between the council and the CNT that put a condition on the title that forbade its use for retail. The condition was to run until the local plan had an equivalent bar put in it which the council took as their interpretation of one of the local plan policies. The purchaser of the land who put the planning application wrote to WBC and asked for copies of the Section 106 deeds  before they bought the land from the HCA, as it now is. Even then they thought it worth a shot so applied anyway and thankfully got turned down. One day they may find a way to get lucky as may Satnam, the planning system is clearly treated by some as a game, which to us residents it sure is not! Incidentally the only way you find this out about the d north of Westbrook Way is from the report of the Public Enquiry for M&S Gemini, go figure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113
On ‎20‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 7:03 PM, Confused52 said:

Sha,

I presume that you are trying to point a finger at the CNT as it was then. Unfortunately for your argument the CNT had a statutory duty to maximise returns on the disposal of assets. You are trying to make them guilty for obeying the law and that will not fly!

 

I had originally asked who sold the land to Satnam,  Steve Parish posted that it was CNT.

As you say yourself Confused52 "the CNT had a statutory duty to maximise returns on the disposal of assets"  which is exactly the point I have been making!

If they initially sold the land for less than development value without a clause to have a share in profits should the land later be developed, then they have not carried out their duty to "maximise returns" and as seen in the case history I posted,  they could be responsible for serious mismanagement.

If they did include a clause then there is a good profit to be made from this development.

CNT passed assets /obligations etc. to HCA or local councils so if any profits are made, due to a clause in the sale, HCA or WBC will be the 'body' that receives the £'s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Sha,

You ignore the option that the low price you suspect ( have you checked the title at the land registry?) may have reflected their opinion that it was not use for housing because of poor access. Looking at the 1989 CNT map of developments proposed in Warrington it certainly did not figure as an area planned for any development. Of course, being inside the New Town Boundary meant that it was non Green Belt. You may be just flying a kite as indeed Satnam could be. The price obtainable for housing on small scale developments must be high enough to cover the costs of what they have spent so far and a reasonable profit otherwise a sane businessman would have given up by now.

Do you know how the WRDC came in to possession of the land at Peel Hall. Was it as part of the RAF base or compulsory purchase? Personally I have seen no evidence of compulsory purchase so there is no New Town Planning permission in force as far as I am aware. Do you know different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

 

Confused52,

From the example case I posted earlier,

"The inquiry’s view was that the charity should have known that a commercial company would only purchase the property if it had good reason to believe it would secure enfranchisement or successfully negotiate a change of use."

Now, if charity trustees are expected to have that degree of common sense, wouldn't you expect CNT to?  I think most people would.

 So, if CNT didn't put a future profit share clause on the sale to Satnam they could be 'responsible for serious mismanagement' 

On the other hand, if they did put a clause on the sale and are due a very large profit share if the site is developed, don't you think in the interests of 'openness and transparency' that this should be made public knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    73
21 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Sha,

You ignore the option that the low price you suspect ( have you checked the title at the land registry?) may have reflected their opinion that it was not use for housing because of poor access. Looking at the 1989 CNT map of developments proposed in Warrington it certainly did not figure as an area planned for any development. Of course, being inside the New Town Boundary meant that it was non Green Belt. You may be just flying a kite as indeed Satnam could be. The price obtainable for housing on small scale developments must be high enough to cover the costs of what they have spent so far and a reasonable profit otherwise a sane businessman would have given up by now.

Do you know how the WRDC came in to possession of the land at Peel Hall. Was it as part of the RAF base or compulsory purchase? Personally I have seen no evidence of compulsory purchase so there is no New Town Planning permission in force as far as I am aware. Do you know different?

Neither the council nor New Town have ever considered this land suitable for development, largely because of the access problem. Obviously, Satnam does.

For a short period of time it was designated as Green Belt, but Satnam appealed and was successful in having it removed.

I don't think sha's flying a kite, I think she's making a valid point that someone, at some point, failed in protecting public assets.

I don't know how big something has to be for you to consider it large scale, but around 1200 houses rates as bigger than "small scale" in my book.

"Reasonable profit" is fine if that's what the result is, but this deserves another airing here I think:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Fugs,

I was actually suggesting that after failed attempts to get something as large as the 1200 houses ( which I do not consider "small scale")  they will have to give in with much more modest proposals. Those modest proposals will presumably have to give a return on what they paid for the land and also pay back the ever increasing cost of multiple planning application all with a return to cover the cost of the capital used over years (i.e. interest). I suggest that because of what you agree with about lack of suitability in your first sentence they will have to stop spending good money after bad and settle for probably two unconnected small scale projects that will not cause any more traffic chaos than WBC does on a weekly basis! In the mean time Satnam seem to have a acquired a hobby involving annoying the local Residents and WBC and are indulging themselves shamelessly!

On your last point Satnam does not appear to actually be a house builder at all but someone who wants to make a profit from applying for planning permission and selling the land on with outline permission. So far I have only seen outline applications not anything for full permission. That may change when the proposals scale down to reality.

I would have to know where the land was acquired from to agree or disagree with the protecting public assets point. If it was part of the RAF land at Padgate then it was probably regarded as a drain on the exchequer and any money for it would have been a bonus since it was not suitable for employment or residential development according to the CNT. I sometimes think people confuse what an asset is with what something that the public values. Land that the public enjoy to use, generally for no cost, has little asset value because other people don't want to pay money for exclusive use of it. Satnam seem to be trying to make something out of a low value asset, but the fact that they are doing so is not a failing of those who sold it for low value. Every time they try and fail to obtain planning permission could be  reinforcing the correctness of the public body's judgement of asset value.

Sha seems to be conflating something the public values (i.e. Access to the Peel Hall land) with a high asset value (i.e. a purchaser would pay a lot of money for it) and then asserting that the (incorrectly) inferred high asset value implies wrongdoing on the part of a public body (assumed to be the CNT in the absence of sight of the deeds). I see no proof to support such an interpretation but if someone lets us all know the sale value and the land's provenance I could change my mind. I generally don't assume Government is guilty of wrongdoing just because today it is not under the control of the Labour party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

Waffle all you like, Confused52.

Read this, from the example case, a few times over until it sinks in!

"The inquiry’s view was that the charity should have known that a commercial company would only purchase the property if it had good reason to believe it would secure enfranchisement or successfully negotiate a change of use."

Profit sharing clauses have been common practice for donkey's years and a clause should have been put in place at the time of the sale to Satnam. If this wasn't done it would be, not merely "failed in protecting public assets" as Fug terms it, but 'serious mismanagement'.

But, as it would have been recognised as 'serious mismanagement' at the time, and lots of people would have known the details of the sale, how likely is it for a clause to have been omitted?

That would leave another 2 possibilities, either details of the clause have since disappeared or, CNT (now HCA) or whoever sold the land to Satnam, stand to make a multi-million- pound profit. If HCA are to make a massive profit they should be open and honest about it.

Then we have the land near the mill - which could provide access and open up the site to development. This is supposed to be owned by HCA - but, Satnam have stated they own it!  What would lead Satnam to claim ownership of something they know they don't own?  Are they expecting to own it? are negotiations on a sale in progress? 

I think the facts of the sale and present land ownership issues need to be made public and also any interests HCA might have in the proposed Peel Development as there could be wider issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Do you see that word "charity" in your highlighted text?  Well that makes it pretty irrelevant because charities are constrained by a different body of law to a government non-departmental department such as the CNT.

Sorry you think what I said was waffle. However what you just wrote is little more than opinionated conjecture. I agree that the facts should be made public, so find them and publish them. Just to give you a hand the HCA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act so you can write and ask them if they have any residual rights including clawback in or over the land titles concerned. They can refuse to tell to what they are because of commercial confidentiality but there is no reason or justification  to hide having no interest.

Why not find the truth rather than making wild guesses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113
3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

.....I was actually suggesting that after failed attempts to get something as large as the 1200 houses ( which I do not consider "small scale")  they will have to give in with much more modest proposals. Those modest proposals will presumably have to give a return on what they paid for the land and also pay back the ever increasing cost of multiple planning application all with a return to cover the cost of the capital used over years (i.e. interest). I suggest that because of what you agree with about lack of suitability in your first sentence they will have to stop spending good money after bad and settle for probably two unconnected small scale projects that will not cause any more traffic chaos than WBC does on a weekly basis! In the mean time Satnam seem to have a acquired a hobby involving annoying the local Residents and WBC and are indulging themselves shamelessly!

On your last point Satnam does not appear to actually be a house builder at all but someone who wants to make a profit from applying for planning permission and selling the land on with outline permission. So far I have only seen outline applications not anything for full permission. That may change when the proposals scale down to reality.

I would have to know where the land was acquired from to agree or disagree with the protecting public assets point. If it was part of the RAF land at Padgate then it was probably regarded as a drain on the exchequer and any money for it would have been a bonus since it was not suitable for employment or residential development according to the CNT. I sometimes think people confuse what an asset is with what something that the public values. Land that the public enjoy to use, generally for no cost, has little asset value because other people don't want to pay money for exclusive use of it. Satnam seem to be trying to make something out of a low value asset, but the fact that they are doing so is not a failing of those who sold it for low value. Every time they try and fail to obtain planning permission could be  reinforcing the correctness of the public body's judgement of asset value......

 

What was all that but 'opinionated conjecture'? :rolleyes::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113
1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

Do you see that word "charity" in your highlighted text?  Well that makes it pretty irrelevant because charities are constrained by a different body of law to a government non-departmental department such as the CNT.

Sorry you think what I said was waffle. However what you just wrote is little more than opinionated conjecture. I agree that the facts should be made public, so find them and publish them. Just to give you a hand the HCA is subject to the Freedom of Information Act so you can write and ask them if they have any residual rights including clawback in or over the land titles concerned. They can refuse to tell to what they are because of commercial confidentiality but there is no reason or justification  to hide having no interest.

Why not find the truth rather than making wild guesses?

I obviously saw the word 'charity' in the highlighted text.  I used the example because it was a very recent case. 

And before you use your 'councillor type aversion attempting' speech on me, let me assure you I am very well acquainted with the land disposal regulations CNT (HCA) have to comply with and the consequences they face if they don't!

Also, I have tried to get information from HCA but as yet had no reply - I don't know why because as you say 'there is no reason or justification to hide having no interest'. Though I doubt a yes / no answer to this would be enough for the detailed information I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

I was suggesting only that a yes/ no answer was all that you might get.

What on earth did " 'councillor type aversion attempting' " mean?

I am glad you know the regulations because I don't; I suppose I was really trying to point out that the inquiry report you quoted might just fail to be accepted as a precedent in case law at a judicial review.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113

'councillor type aversion attempting' speech = using 'waffle' in an attempt to draw attention from points made.

I used the charity case as an example to illustrate that even charity trustees are expected to conduct land disposals, bearing in mind future profits and that not to do so is 'serious mismanagement'. This could also be used as an 'example' at judicial review but not as a precedent in 'planning' law.  I would expect any such precedent in public land disposal to be extremely rare - if existing at all - due to the amount of people who have to be involved in such disposals, but more especially the very serious consequences of mismanagement re such disposals by people who are professionals in this specific field.

I would expect that a profit share clause does exist on the Peel site. The importance of any such information being in the public realm would be in regard to the application for planning consent. And for the same reason it needs to be established whether or not HCA have sold or are in the process of selling the mill access land to Satnam.  If HCA stand to profit from the Peel site, and do plan to sell the access land to enable the development to go ahead, why, at this particular point in proceedings would they be with-holding the access land sale? HCA have other sites currently awaiting decisions on planning approval, which, if the Peel site had already been approved it would be unlikely they would get approval for as the housing quota figures would have been met. (They are relying on the Appleton / Grappenhall / Stretton sites - unnecessary aspirational housing - being considered to 'fulfil the housing quota'). 

I wonder if the Peel site is being held back purposely, (until after the other applications have been considered) as they think that Peel can be considered later, irrespective of the housing quota as it contains much affordable housing?  But surely such antics, which might be used by a wily, greed driven developer would not be ethical if used by the HCA?  What would you think? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Do explain this "The importance of any such information being in the public realm would be in regard to the application for planning consent.". My limited understanding is that it would only be a matter of concern for planning if it represented a reason why the project may fail. It being morally reprehensible has never been a planning matter! I suggest you wait until the due date on your FOI request before guessing what the motives are for anything from the CNT. Do be aware, if you are not already, that the people who deal with your request are probably based in Warrington and could be reading what you say here.

I suggest you look carefully at the Mill Access Land as you call it. You suggest that it is owned by the HCA, in a previous post you say that Peel claim to own it. The planning application form section 25 contains certificates of ownership(Certificate). I note that none of them bear the name HCA. I would draw you attention to this parliamentary answer https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-10-17d.73703.h which while not binding the courts would no doubt carry weight before an inspector at an appeal by an applicant who falsely specified ownership.

Your final paragraph appears to be predicated on the assumption that HCA is the owner of the "Mill Access Land", or have I misunderstood? If you do make that assumption I would suggest you test it by using the Land registry map search and identifying the land parcel you want to know about then buying a £3 copy of the Title Deed. That will give you the owner but I suspect it will not be the HCA.

My understanding of the south Warrington applications by CNT was that they were for significant numbers of affordable housing because that is their current mandate from government. On that basis they should not need to play the game that you suspect them of. I don't understand the point about the Peel Hall site being held back because you haven't shown there was anything held back as yet and the traffic would still has blocked it as far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    73

The last time I saw this information on the HCA's own website (it may still be there but I can't find it) Ballater Drive playing fields (Mill access land) was listed as an HCA asset and was designated as a "ransom strip".

Although Satnam has never owned this land, it did form part of the last planning application.

As I understand it, WBC have now taken a six year lease on the playing fields, though I don't know when this runs from/to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×