McBain Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted October 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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' 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Forgive my ignorance but where is Peel Hall? I'm new round here, only moved in 1988 :confused: :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywonka Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 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 [ 31.10.2007, 21:45: Message edited by: Geoff Settle ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Originally posted by asperity: Forgive my ignorance but where is Peel Hall? I'm new round here, only moved in 1988 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2007 Report Share Posted October 31, 2007 Pity Albert's not here; to stand in front of the bulldozer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywonka Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Just to the left of Radley Lane on this map. All the brown bits South of the M62 then? Ta Geoff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 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 ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Expediency rules: and expediency is the antithesis of planning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 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 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 It isn't Common Land or the judgement would have been entirely different. It must be in private ownership or Satnam wouldn't be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2007 Report Share Posted November 1, 2007 Wonder if they'll gain access for a new development, directly onto the Motorway?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Settle Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Struggle with Poplars Ave now, they've got traffic calming - it's call cars parked on the road - sometimes double parked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 That's a bigger bung than the Stadium! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 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 [ 02.11.2007, 10:48: Message edited by: McBain ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2007 Report Share Posted November 2, 2007 Sadly "the Councillors" won't have a clue; they'll rely on their planning officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.