Jump to content
Sha

1,200 New Homes at Peel Hall

Recommended Posts

Confused52    10

Fugs,

Very helpful, so the requirement to purchase the ransom strip is indeed what gives value to HCA and not a claw back clause, or at least it was when you saw it. Your comment on the WBC lease means that the reference to WBC in the Application form Section 25 could be taken to include that ransom strip. However HCA were not mentioned even though they apparently own the Freehold which would be an omission on the form. You have found a way that CNT achieved what Sha is looking for without secret contract clauses which is useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113
On ‎25‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 5:06 PM, Confused52 said:

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.

We are talking about applications made by HCA - not a private developer but a body managing public land!  Information re whatever land or whatever interests they hold on land is something they should be wholly transparent about. They hold several plots in Warrington for which they have applications for development, and these will affect the 'housing target' figures notably due to when and consequently if they will be developed. For example, if the Peel site had already received planning permission then the case for the Appleton / Grappenhall sites being passed for development would be weak because this type of housing is not really needed.  - but, if Appleton / Grappenhall sites receive planning permission first, this would be less likely to prevent the Peel site getting permission later, due to the 'affordability' factor of the developments planned for the Peel site. So, if access was a big point in the refusal for the Peel site and HCA are planning to sell the access land to Satnam, then surely all this should have been out in the open?

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.

So, what?  :rolleyes:

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.

HCA claimed to own a portion of land on the Bewsey Old Hall site which was in fact owned by Woodland Trust! 

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.

(thanks to Fug for supplying you with info re this.)

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.

(affordable = circa 80% of average price in the area), how 'affordable' would be circa £400k to the majority of people in Warrington? 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.

With a couple of tweaks, better access points etc. a future application might just get passed.  I have no crystal ball, we will all have to wait and see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    113
On ‎26‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 9:02 AM, Confused52 said:

Fugs,

Very helpful, so the requirement to purchase the ransom strip is indeed what gives value to HCA and not a claw back clause, or at least it was when you saw it. Your comment on the WBC lease means that the reference to WBC in the Application form Section 25 could be taken to include that ransom strip. However HCA were not mentioned even though they apparently own the Freehold which would be an omission on the form. You have found a way that CNT achieved what Sha is looking for without secret contract clauses which is useful.

Check out the procedures for land disposal - there will either be a profit share clause or 'serious mismanagement'.  Whichever is the case it should not be secret.

 

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

×