Greenalls Plans - The Return - and Consultation

[McBain]

I was going to read the report but I've become so disillusioned with the appalling quality of report writing in the Borough that I needn't bother, it will just be another "Janet and John does Planning" style report so that the thick members can say that they have been "briefed" when in reality if the case received the analysis it deserved it would be quite technical and would cite numerous instances of case-law... but we mustn't have that because the members will think it is elitist behaviour on the part of the planning officers who are deliberately throwing their qualifications in the faces of the ill-educated members

 

It will go through. Interesting though, the Greenalls scheme touts about ?300,000 of "community benefits" off the back of just 178 houses. The Peel scheme totalled ?1,716,250 of the back of 250 units. This means that the Greenalls scheme is contributing only ?1,685 per unit whereas the Peel scheme is hit for ?6,865 per unit. Given that both schemes lie within the same electoral ward, how come there is such a huge disparity in perception of community requirements? Maybe the Greenalls scheme should be forced to match the community contributions put forward by the Peel scheme so that the area would receive ?1,221,970 instead?

 

Of course I was forgetting, WBC thinks that Greenalls in Warrington is important, and yet it has manifestly failed to quantify this importance in any meaningful way

 

[ 17.02.2008, 10:53: Message edited by: McBain ]

[Dizzy]

 

You realy should read the recommendation report McB... it will make you laugh

 

 

And the ?300,000 is payable in two installements

? ?300,000 for sport and recreation (payable in 2 increments).

? ?50,000 towards health care facilities

? A total of 17 affordable housing units or 8.5% of the total units constructed, which ever is the greater. In the event the owner cannot transfer the units to a RSL a contribution of ?75,000 per unit shall be made to the Council in lieu

[McBain]

Bloomin' heck! That must be the most generous negotiating the Council has ever done with a developer If the Peel and Greenalls sites are less than 1.5 miles apart, how come there is such a huge difference in terms of affordable housing need :confused: Peel was 48 units, all RSL; Greenalls is 17 units, maybe RSL but with a buy-out option??? Unbelievable - where was the Latchford West members when all this was being hammered out? Just pitiful :angelwings:

[Peter T]

Originally posted by McBain:

Unbelievable - where was the Latchford West members when all this was being hammered out? Just pitiful

[Dizzy]

Approved :redmad:

 

[ 20.02.2008, 21:58: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

[Peter T]

It will be interesting to learn what the Community gain will be.

[Dizzy]

Community Gain.... what's that

 

The existing community will gain....

 

Increased traffic congestion on already heavily congested roads.

 

Increased demand for already over subscribed schools (except for the new SH school primary which has plenty of spare places ready and waiting ) None in secondary though.

 

Increased demand for oversubscribed doctors/ dentists places in the area.

 

There will be some jobs created in the new warehouses.. low paid and unskilled something for the youngsters to aim for eh

 

other than that there appears to be no community, social or economic benefits whatsoever.

 

Never mind eh :redmad:

[Peter T]

?300,000 sounds a lot.

Perhaps it is going towards finishing the road surfacing up to the lights.

[McBain]

?300,000 sounds a lot

Are you a idiot??! That is a pitiful amount and I bet that Greenalls were laughing their silk socks off at how easily the Council was bought off. As I indicated earlier, to at least achieve parity with nearby development the offer should have been in the realms of ?1.1 million.

 

[ 21.02.2008, 15:33: Message edited by: Gary ]

[Dizzy]

Greenalls will be quids in anyway because all the approval means is that Greenalls are finally in a position to SELL the site and it's outline planning permission on to a developer.

 

I'd love to see what price tag they put on it

[Paul Kennedy]

Somewhat less than a year or so ago.

[Peter T]

McBain.

I don't know what Gary deleted, but I didn't say it was a "lot", I said it "sounded" a lot. There is a difference.

When you have inept cllrs "and" an inept council, life is difficult. Latchford West Forum have put certain proposals to Greenalls and we will see what the outcome is.

[McBain]

Peter, sorry for getting a bit steamed there, but the Greenalls deal really only benefits Greenalls - the Council got shafted, pure and simple. Whether it was inept negotiation (which is possible since neither planning officers nor Council members have the commercial aptitude to take on the agents employed by businesses such as Greenalls etc) or just a case of someone whispering in someone higher-up's ear, the upshot is a poor decision. I've no problem with redevelopment, but the "planning gain" is nowhere near sufficient to off-set the additional strain on social infrastructure that will result.

 

As for the Latchford West Forum - it won't go anywhere, I guarantee it.

[Peter T]

Apathy rules McB. Apathy rules.

The cllrs haven't got a clue and the electorate don't care.unless Nimbyism strikes.

I would suggest that 99% of people don't know what goes on in their area, and only notice when out for a drive on a sunny Sunday afternoon.