Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sha

Green Belt homes plan is madness

Recommended Posts

observer    587
13 hours ago, asperity said:

Here's one single person who doesn't want to live in a high rise - cladding or no cladding - thank you!

Beggars can't be choosers Asp; unless your a Grenfell surviving migrant living in a hotel at tax payer's expense !       :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
On 25/08/2017 at 9:41 AM, Sha said:

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?”

Maybe part of the answer - maybe the main part - is one that the council doesn't want to disclose: pensions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112
On ‎04‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 11:45 AM, grey_man said:

Maybe part of the answer - maybe the main part - is one that the council doesn't want to disclose: pensions.  

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?”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
algy    298

The whole situation is politically motivated, most (if not all) Warringtons councilors live North of the MSC and have a 'NIMBY' attitude, inasmuch that " build the the new housing development South of the canal, the population of that area don't vote for us anyway so what have we got to lose".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
6 hours ago, algy said:

The whole situation is politically motivated, most (if not all) Warringtons councilors live North of the MSC and have a 'NIMBY' attitude, inasmuch that " build the the new housing development South of the canal, the population of that area don't vote for us anyway so what have we got to lose".

There's always that, as evidenced by the amount of spending on things in the South. But this whole local plan is about building of houses and business parks across the whole Borough. The potential is there for Warrington to become an overdeveloped, polluted hellhole. The whole plan looks nothing short of insanity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172

It strikes me following the latest mealy mouthed justification from Andy Farrall that people are now really finding out who their local politicians represent, and it isn't them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
algy    298
34 minutes ago, grey_man said:

It strikes me following the latest mealy mouthed justification from Andy Farrall that people are now really finding out who their local politicians represent, and it isn't them. 

It has taken them this long to recognise that, show me a politician who isn't in it for their own ends!!!!!!!!!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
6 hours ago, algy said:

It has taken them this long to recognise that, show me a politician who isn't in it for their own ends!!!!!!!!!.

One of the interesting - and probably dispiriting things about this - will be to watch what Faisal Rashid does. If he's a representative of the people of his constituency, he's about to go head to head with the council. And if he's a representative of the council, he's about to clash with his constituents.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzy    293
4 hours ago, grey_man said:

One of the interesting - and probably dispiriting things about this - will be to watch what Faisal Ahmed does. If he's a representative of the people of his constituency, he's about to go head to head with the council. And if he's a representative of the council, he's about to clash with his constituents.  

I presume you mean our MP Faisal Rashid not 'Ahmed' :wink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
22 minutes ago, Dizzy said:

I presume you mean our MP Faisal Rashid not 'Ahmed' :wink:

 

Oops. I do :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Togger1    2

Just out of interest, how many of the proposed houses are proposed to be built on designated "Green Belt" land?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil Sid    226

In the region of 9000.out of the proposed 24000 that is said to be required to cover warrington's housing needs up to 2037 need

to be built on green belt land were the figures reported in the local press recently.

Think the main fear is that the green belt land will be developed ahead of brownfield sites and that traffic issues seem to not really figure in the equation at all.

Alll it takes for warrington to get gridlocked is M&S to announce a sale apparently. yesterday saw traffic chaos due to M&S 20% off sale and the roadworks at junction 8. Gemini area a no go area except by foot and that was on a Sunday. Shudder to think what it is like during the school run times. It was bad enough four years ago when it could take twenty minutes to get from the waterways island to the dual carriageway at the peace centre and that was at seven am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112

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).      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sha    112
On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:26 AM, grey_man said:

One of the interesting - and probably dispiriting things about this - will be to watch what Faisal Rashid does. If he's a representative of the people of his constituency, he's about to go head to head with the council. And if he's a representative of the council, he's about to clash with his constituents.  

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'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grey_man    172
3 hours ago, Sha said:

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'. 

He's only paid to represent the people of the town. So if he's fence sitting, he's not representing them. If that turns out to be the case with one of the most important issues facing them, I hope he's voted out at the next opportunity. 

Good old Andy Farrall, eh? Let's be generous and say he's misrepresenting his own documents.

Where are the councillors?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    587

Is there sufficient evidence to support a judicial review of the Council's decisions and procedures ?   Are they in compliance with their own LDP ?  Have they carried out a public consultation exercise ?  Are their housing needs figures based on Warrington generated population and demographic projections ?   Are proposed houses going to meet true need in terms of affordability ratios ?   Has a traffic and environmental impact study been conducted ?   Does the needs study relate to economic and employment needs with the Town or will the development merely represent dormer villages for workers commuting elsewhere ?      :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confused52    10

Obs,

All your material questions are answered in the consultation document set. In addition you cannot ask for a judicial review on a decision which has not been taken and what they are doing does not need to conform with the LDP (i.e. core strategy) because the consultation is about a replacement LDP. Requiring conformance with the old plan would make any change impossible wouldn't it?

I note that the figures include a backdated number for the two years since the quashing order for the Omega housing clauses and that the figures out to 2037 are 50% larger than the DCLG forecasts made on a 2014 base. It is also true that since 2014 net migration into Warrington from other parts of the UK as well as abroad have fallen. There will be a new estimate by ONS on a 2018 base and there is no certainty that it will justify even the lower number. What that means is that they are ensuring there is a supply of land for housing which will not necessarily all be built on by 2037. The process requires that they ensure that a future supply of land can be identified. I often criticise the council when they do things wrong so, with regret, I must defend them when they are probably right.

I expect someone will chirp up that I am wrong but affordable is something like 80% of Local market rent. There are statistics produced by the Valuation Office Agency and Warrington's local market rent is set across the Borough as a whole so the hints that current prices are too high to afford in Appleton are irrelevant. The rental figures are I think the same one use to test is rent is too high for housing Benefit. A cost above the affordable rental cost applies when home are bought as affordable, I don't know the details but presumably it tends to 100% of the outlay for local market rent, excluding service charges. As an example, for Warrington the 4 bed upper quartile was £1298 in year to March 17 (the median was £1050). I guess someone cleverer than me can work out what the purchase price would be for a home 20% rented and 80% purchased on a mortgage such that the total monthly outgoings do not exceed £1300 per month. Whatever amount it is, the family will need to find up to £16k per year, is that really not possible for incomers to Warrington?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×