Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wahl

Talks in progress for Peel Hall

Recommended Posts

It's hard to know just what is or isn't going on anywmore about anything :evil:

 

We get told they 'are doing', then they 'are not doing', and then they 'have been but not anymore', and now 'they are again' with regards to talks about Peel and indeed other things too.

 

With the latest finding from the FOU request it makes you wonder just how many other talks are going in private between which would never show up even if a FOI request was done.

 

Little wonder people are slowly but surely losing all faith in the council leadership (past and present), the planning department and some of the councillors and mp's.

 

It's about time they sorted out the mess and got to grips with their officers. Comes to something when the labour MP (Ms Jones) is basically criticising her own party leadership and management in her latest press release so something clearly not right.

 

I very much doubt the likes of Mr Farrall, Mr Taylor of Ms Groves could be sacked though. There are rules must be followed to do that, ironic really :lol:

 

Those higher up officers who screw up or fail in certain ways tend to be 'moved on' to other postitions elsewhere though :wink:

 

AND what is happening about the destruction of all those planning records ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of twaddle is being written on this topic. Every planning application must be judged on its merits. Therefore, the fact that Satnam have had previous applications refused is irrelevant. The fact that the borough council's general policy is that Peel Hall should not be developed is irrelevant. Satnam (or anyone else) is entitled to put in a new application and it must be considered. It might be different to previous ones. They are also entitled to have informal talks with senior planning officers. In fact, the officers would be failing in their duty if they refused to have such talks.

I could put in an application to build a nuclear power station at Peel Hall and it would have to be considered. I could ask for informal talks at which, doubtless, I would be advised that I was wasting my time. Satnam may well have been advised that they are wasting their time. But their application cannot be refused until it has been considered.

As an experienced MP of many years' standing, I would expect Helen Jones to know all this. The fact that she apparently doesn't suggests she is playing politics. Her targets, I suspect, are officers and not the Labour administration. In fact it is probably all part of a plan to put pressure on officers Labour would like to get rid of so that they will leave of their own accord.

Those of you who think senior council officers are overpaid and should not accept pay rises might care to reflect on the fact that it is not very nice to have a job (no matter how well paid) which you can lose at the whim of the electorate.

 

As to the matter of the destroyed documents. I seem to recall that the council promised a full, external inquiry. Does anyone seriously think this can be done in five minutes?

 

For the record, I too am opposed to development at Peel Hall. I am not a council officer nor a councillor. I am just trying to add a little reason to the hysterical debate that is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not hysterical Egbert and I do understand that planning officers have a duty to discuss possible proposals with developers but the problem I have is (1) we've seen this sort of thing happen before where they swore blind that nothing was happening and they had only had a few 'chats'. Then it emerged that they had virturally signed on the dotted line before the public even knew what was going on. Yes I know it still had to go through the dev control board but they were so far down the line in plans and legalities that had the developer not pulled out they would undoubtably have approved it. That is only one exampe.

 

Anyway, back to Peel..... maybe you are right and Ms Jones is inded playing politics (as is usually the case and what I first believed ) BUT she should not be allowed to continually do this about the same development IF she is merely spouting hot air and there are NO actual concerns or likelyhood of the plans being submitted or approved.

 

You are also correct that anyone can submit planning applications on any land. I could apply for outline planning permission on Ms Jones' garden if I wanted to (if she have a garden) just as I could apply to build on the local playing field. I would imagine though that during initial discussions the officers would advise me that in principle the plans and design would be fine but in practice I would NOT be able to actually build on it.

 

... So maybe in the case of Peel, after the planners have had their couple of talks with the developer Satnam wouldn't it have made more sense and avoided all this if at the time they had actually said to the developer 'Nice idea but I'm afraid that would be against policy 'this, that and the other' because of x, y & z so it would not be allowed and you are just wasting yours and our time.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair summary Eggy; but with one slight note of caution: Diz says "against policy - end of" (which is how it should be) - not so. IF the developer has enough money, sweetners can be dangled in front of the Officers, the Councillors and even a whole Town - it's called "planning gain"; and has been used successfully by developers to overturn policies that have taken eons to construct - policies require consistent application - politics require expediency! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment, Obs. But if there is a genuine "planning gain" perhaps it should be considered.

Dizzy - did I accuse YOU of being hysterical? Perish the thought!

 

But how do we know Satnam were not told they were wasting their time? Developers tend to be a bit thick skinned and probably require telling several times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: I usally come across as being hysterical when I read my own posts Egbert :wink:

 

You are right though again and yes developers are often thick skinned but that's because they know how to play the system and the planners, and of course they also know that our exec/development board decision makers don't really make the decisions as they take the recomendation of the officers most of the time.

 

Unless of course all that has now changed under the new administration :wink:

 

Although IF Satnam have already been told and given the reason why then there is no need for the planners to have to feel 'obliged' to engage in further indepth talks and discussions with them is there? After all it is wasting taxpayers money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good form of defence Peter.. should defence suddenly become necessary as it will put the opponent off slightly... think Karate :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we will have to keep an eye on this matter as the crooked people on WBC seem determined to pocket a backhander from a developer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the council has failed to submit Peel Hall (or any open green space or park in Warrington) to be registered and saved from future building with the Queen Elizabeth II Field Challenge, a scheme being led by Prince William to mark the Diamond jubilee.

Said an un-named spokesman "We decided not to apply to the Queen Elizabeth II Fields Challenge because our current policies and procedures are already committed to protecting Warrington’s green spaces.”

But they forgot to add, while keeping the option to allow building anywhere as long as the price is right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From WBC's latest draft planning document:

 

Peel Hall: Peel Hall is a significant area of greenfield land in North Warrington. The approach to the site is set out in the Overall Spatial Strategy, where the site has been identified as one of a number of strategic locations, one or a combination of which could be needed to accommodate housing growth in the longer term to avoid the need to release Green Belt land for development.

 

For "...to avoid the need to release Green Belt land for development.", read "if we hadn't ballsed it up in the first place this land wouldn't have already been released from the green belt".

 

http://warrington.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/pre_publication_draft_core_strategy_2011/pre_pub_cs?pointId=s1295974056417#section-s1295974056417

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the re are certain members of wbc executive who are liars. and corrupt.

 

 

Peel hall is included for development options in transport and housing plans.

Come on Mrs Jones get rid of the corrupt officials who are going behind backs to develop this vital piece of green belt.

The people like P Taylor should be ashamed as they have obviously carried on behind the public's back . Sack them and make Peel hall proper green belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Come on Mrs Jones get rid of the corrupt officials who are going behind backs to develop this vital piece of green belt.

 

 

I think it's more of a job for her minions at local level - although at times they do seem more concerned with stirring the **** about national issues than getting on with local issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the re are certain members of wbc executive who are liars. and corrupt.

 

 

Peel hall is included for development options in transport and housing plans.

Come on Mrs Jones get rid of the corrupt officials who are going behind backs to develop this vital piece of green belt.

The people like P Taylor should be ashamed as they have obviously carried on behind the public's back . Sack them and make Peel hall proper green belt.

Looks like Wahl hasn't bothered to read Fugtifino's post with the link http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2648.html

 

It's not green belt. WBC made it green belt in the UDP, the judge said it isn't green belt. Policy in the draft core strategy seems to be that if in the long term more housing land is needed (after brownfield or other sites not in the green belt) then this is one of four "greenfield" sites in the borough where housing and other development might be allowed (to avoid encroaching in the green belt, e.g. round Culcheth). That's what the judge's ruling meant, and nothing's likely to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks vic. It does look like a done deal. Secret talks or not, the developers were in there first without any potential objectors being aware that the game had already started.

 

This despite WBC (of whatever persuasion) saying they are firmly against any development on this site.

 

It's pretty clear it's not a political party who wear the trousers around these parts, pardner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks vic. It does look like a done deal. Secret talks or not, the developers were in there first without any potential objectors being aware that the game had already started.

 

This despite WBC (of whatever persuasion) saying they are firmly against any development on this site.

 

It's pretty clear it's not a political party who wear the trousers around these parts, pardner.

No, it's the law and the unelected judges who interpret it (and a lot of planning issues rest on test cases like this). Objections from the public would have carried little weight with the judge. Only Parliament could change that, but the government has gone the other way toward the presumption in favour of development, and with the new National Planning Policy Framework coming in you'd have even less chance of protecting the land from development.

 

But once other less sensitive land is exhausted, where would you build houses in Warrington?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corruption starts at the top.

If you believe warrington needs more houses. there are so many unoccupied office buildings that hghey could be demolished rather than use a green field site. ( I really don't give a toss about what a nameless incompetent judge says as most of these people are guided by the executive and totally ignorant about the locality and probably get a good backhander)

If Castleford is anything to go by, it is just another mess for the future.

 

Be interesting to see if the local councillors actually say anything about this .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But once other less sensitive land is exhausted, where would you build houses in Warrington?

 

Once other less sensitive land is exhausted, I'm not sure I'd have any more built, there's no rule that says the town has to expand any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But once other less sensitive land is exhausted, where would you build houses in Warrington?

 

Once other less sensitive land is exhausted, I'm not sure I'd have any more built, there's no rule that says the town has to expand any more.

Yes, there is - the presumption in favour of development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued with the concept of an elected judiciary being better than an unelected one. Woudl that necessarily ensure a better result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic, I wouldn't call that a rule (at best, an ill thought out panic reaction) and although it's current, it may change. Without continuing with the urban sprawl, there really isn't much space left in Warrington that hasn't been previously developed.

 

And, it does seem odd that if we do need more houses, why do we need fewer schools?

 

Then, there's always this:

 

http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2

 

Click on the link for the 2009-10 stats, over 2,300 empty homes in Warrington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vic, I wouldn't call that a rule (at best, an ill thought out panic reaction) and although it's current, it may change. Without continuing with the urban sprawl, there really isn't much space left in Warrington that hasn't been previously developed.

 

And, it does seem odd that if we do need more houses, why do we need fewer schools?

 

Then, there's always this:

 

http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2

 

Click on the link for the 2009-10 stats, over 2,300 empty homes in Warrington.

A road near us (80 houses) has 4 unoccupied (one "tinned") and one converted to 4 flats, all empty.

 

More houses doesn't equal more schools for various reasons: people have fewer children, there are more people living alone, and schools close in areas with a stable getting older population (Woolston) and are built where young families are (Grappenhall, Chapelford).

 

But the basic rule of the planning system is that you need a reason not to allow development. Once, if you owned the land, you could do what you want. As a reasoned reaction (not a panic) Parliament started restricting that. Landowners (and the present government) tend to think the rules are too restrictive, people next door want more restrictions. Councils apply the rules and, if they don't allow something that the law, whether legislation or test case precedent, says should be allowed, it costs them (us) money (costs going to appeal, and the applicant's costs awarded at appeal). The law now says you can build on Peel Hall, and all the Council can do is resist that on grounds such as there's still plenty of other places to build in the borough. Unless, like Wahl, you think everyone's corrupt (probably including the Queen who signs the laws) then a bit of reality about the situation would help.

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  

×