Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
McBain

Peel Hall Decision

Recommended Posts

This from the Warrington Midweek paper:

 

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build on the Peel Hall site have received a major boost in a court decision that has delivered a blow to the council.

 

Developer Satnam Millennium Ltd persuaded Mr Justice Sullivan, the country's top planning judge, to remove the site from the green belt.

 

Now the judge's decision is one that threatens to reignite controversy which has raged for years over its potential development.

 

The judge found that, when Warrington Borough Council adopted its Unitary Development Plan (UDP), it moved the green belt boundary nearer to Peel Hall.

 

The judge today ruled that the council moved the established boundary without showing the required exceptional circumstances to justify such a move.

 

As a result, he held that the Peel Hall site should now be removed from the Green belt, effectively freeing it from restrictions which block lucrative development potential that Satnam had argued would otherwise have remained in place for at least two decades.

 

Any potential development of the site would still have to receive planning permission from the council, and the judge said it remained an "open question" whether his decision would have any practical effect.

 

However, this is unlikely to be the end of the legal dispute. The Council successfully asked for permission to take the case further, to the Court of Appeal.

 

It claimed that the case raises an important issue of principle, which could affect several other Green Belt areas in the country for which boundaries have yet to be set, including York.

 

The judge gave the go-ahead for an appeal, but ordered the council to pay the developer's legal costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

Sounds to me as though Warrington Council has dropped another clanger that is going to have far-reaching effects :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really; it shows where the real power rests in our society: not with the elected local Government; but with those with the money to pay for so-called justice. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with the likes of peel hall park and sankey valley is that they have been left to rot and are not desirable places to visit, as such I couldnt give a monkeys what was built there, it will be maintained at least.

 

I cant remember how long ago these places were developed into park walks etc (20 years maybe more) but it looks like the council have never been back, all the walkways ore over run with bushhes, bike frames, mudded ponds not fit for man nore beast. its a disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you may find that some of these parks/cycleways were built by the New Town; whether adequate funding was set aside for future maintainance is an open question. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really; it shows where the real power rests in our society: not with the elected local Government; but with those with the money to pay for so-called justice.
Or to look at it another way, the developers' ability to take these decisions to the High Court acts as a necessary balance to off-set some of the more stupid decisions taken by the Council supposedly for the 'public good' :P

 

Ob's point about provision for future maintenance is well made however. It is only recently that Warrington Council has started requiring developers to contribute sufficient cash for 30 years worth of maintenance on schemes, it used to be only 5-years worth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the UDP took about ten years to finished; involved umpteen revisions and public consultations etc; to presumably arrive at a concensus of what local people wanted for the future of THEIR Town. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance but where is Peel Hall? I'm new round here, only moved in 1988 :confused: :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's roughly between Cinnamom Brow ond Orford, Aspers.

 

Sounds like they've let this slip because they didn't show their working out: another WBC own goal. Wonder if HJ knows yet, it's one of the few issues she's actually voiced opinion on in the commons.

 

Anyone know when this area was designated Green Belt land?

 

Doesn't Peel Hall Park belong to the council then? Or, is this referring to other land surrounding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's NOT Peel Hall Park (unless this council has gone completely to the dogs and started to build on parkland)it's the land behind it. Just to the left of Radley Lane on this map.

Pell Hall Site

Aerial View

 

I thought he'd been seen off for a couple of years but him and his chums have used their muscle once again.

 

This is just another scum bag trick :o

 

[ 31.10.2007, 21:45: Message edited by: Geoff Settle ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats right Willy, unfortunately the Multimap wasn't taken in the spring or summer when all the flora and fauna are out. Then you'd see lots of colour.

 

There are loads of small woods with lovely ponds, loads of locals take there dogs for walks and there are some rare breeds of newts and other wildlife.

 

Plus it's only across the road from an SSI(Site of Scientific Interest) site the lake off Delph Lane.

 

And Observers right Albert Clemow was someone who fought successfully last time to stave off the proposed development plans along with lots of other people including Mick Curran.

 

Unfortunately they are no longer with us but their spirit is. :)

 

If you want to appreciate the Peel Hall site then why not visit the Plough Pub or the Mill House and then take an afternoon stroll this weekend. As Pete says get out more.

 

Appreciate it while it's still there. :(

 

[ 01.11.2007, 07:52: Message edited by: Geoff Settle ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds as though the judciary is latching on to the new planning paradigm that is circulating Westminster (i.e. that the planning system is not fit for purpose and more development is needed).

 

As for the "Green Belt", this is old-hat anyway and is L O N G overdue for a review :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway, I thought this area was called "Radley Common" as it was common ground, my previous post was specificaly reference to the park area.

 

 

Is it common land ?, if it is then it should be protected under the 1925 Law of property act, which allows free right of way to all areas, any construction would be a restriction of this right of way....anyone ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on McBain it isn't common land but it may have been once.

 

The owner used to allow the farmer on the other side of the motorway to farm the land for a number of years.

 

Looks like he's either sold out to Satnam Millennium Ltd or he is getting them to do his dirty work for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO. But with 1,00 homes generating 1,000 + vehicles there are going to be some massive bottle necks that will clogg up Delph Lane, Poplars Avenue and Crab Lane so Winwick and Birchwood will be totally cur off during the peak traffic flow times. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't blame the land owner for selling out to Satnam Millenium Ltd, I'd do exactly the same thing if someone offered me an eight figure sum :D It's all very well for people to bleat from the sidelines about how someone shouldn't make any money just so they can enjoy some land that isn't theirs to begin with.

 

As for access, it will have to be the existing network. However, the Council's SPD on Planning Obligations requires developers to contribute ?413 for each daily trip that a site generates over and above that created by its existing use. Since this land has no appreciable traffic generating uses, and using some rough-and-ready mathematics as follows, we can see that the Council could be in for a hefty payout:

 

Site area (guess) = 100 acres / 40.47 hectares

Min. density required by policy = 30 houses per hectare

Min. No. houses acceptable to Council = 40.47 x 30 = 1,214.1

SPD provides that each house generates 7.5 trips per day

No. daily trips development will create = 7.5 x 1,214 = 9,105

Contribution that Council should seek = 9,105 x ?413 = ?3,760,365

 

Now added to that the Council should also be seeking contributions towards Health Care based on ?268 per dwelling, which would equate to ?325,352

 

As well as Primary Education (?3,413 per dwelling = ?4,143,382) and Secondary Education (?3,724 per dwelling = ?4,520,936)

 

So even without the Council negotiating any Affordable Housing or contributions toward Open Space and Recreation Space, the Planning Gain that a scheme on this site would generate - and assuming it is only developed to the minimum density required by Government guidance - would be approximately:

 

?12,750,035 :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that I'm guessing there is the area of the site. All of the other contributions have been calculated precisely in accordance with the figures set out in the Council's adopted SPD Planning Obligations (September 2007). Strange how the Council has repeatedly failed to get anything like what its own SPD says it should be requiring as a minimum to justify further housing development :wink:

 

[ 02.11.2007, 10:48: Message edited by: McBain ]

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...