Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wahl

Talks in progress for Peel Hall

Recommended Posts

Come along now Peter. Of course the queen (long may she reign) has heard of Warrington. she has visited Warrington on more than one occasion, or at least passed through the town. <_<:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come along now Peter. Of course the queen (long may she reign) has heard of Warrington. she has visited Warrington on more than one occasion, or at least passed through the town. <_<:lol:

 

 

Hope she didn't come down Winwick Road, she would have thought it was a bomb site. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Yup, with such demand for living space, something should be done about all the empties, not that I'd advocate squatting.

 

More houses doesn't equal more schools

 

Well, it doesn’t always, but it might do. There are lots of unknowns in the equation and presenting the case as a certainty is disingenuous.

 

 

I live about as close as it’s possible to get in this area, and I’d much rather any proposed development didn’t happen, but I can’t be opposed to it in principle. If I’m to get a bee in my bonnet about it, it would be about access from the East.

 

I agree that WBC shouldn’t enter into any potentially expensive legal disputes with this developer (he’s not lost one yet), but they shouldn’t short-change themselves either – this land was bought and sold as land only fit for agricultural purposes (much cheaper than development land). Since the owner hasn’t grown so much as a radish on there, I think the ideas for the land were plain to see.

 

The law now says you can build on Peel Hall

 

Do they still need planning permission?

 

I know it's a luxury, but in retrospect, perhaps the council would have been better off not selling this land and using it to build social housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do they still need planning permission?

 

Oh yes, but unless you want the Council to waste money on an appeal, don't expect permission to be refused (once other land is exhausted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any major housing development in Warrington needs to be put on standby until the road infrastructure is sorted and I dont mean just repairing potholes. Much smaller towns have better roads the gready so and so's at the town hall staff and councils just want cash in from builders/developers without any thought on what the town actually needs. Promises promises from the politicians thats all we getand NO action.

Anyone with a grain of sense would see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but as you might be beginning to realise, this is about the law, not sense.

 

On the one hand, we have a clued up, determined property developer who can afford the best kind of legal advice and representation.

 

On the other hand, we have WBC.

 

If I was a betting man, I know who I'd put my money on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are moving on apace here.

 

Helen Jones has taken the unusual step of writing to constituents in this area to notify them about this, which closes today at 5.10pm:

 

http://warrington-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/cs/pre_publication_draft_core_strategy_2011/pre_pub_cs

 

Despite the oft stated view that the council is against development at Peel hall, this document says:

 

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.

 

There's not really enough time left to read this thing, let alone comment on it, but it does promise that there will be further opportunity to comment and shape the document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of mine is convinced she's had a letter inviting her to an open day where people can see the plans for Peel Hall.

 

But now she can't find it. Anyone else had a letter or heard of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of the news report on here in January Helen Jones said the following...

 

"The council's second 'open day' for the public to learn about the plans is only a couple of days before the consultation ends thus allowing only a very short time span in which people could put together their comments."

 

She also complained that the consultation was being run over xmas....

 

from here : http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/12300/1/Peel-Hall-still-earmarked-for-homes---MP/Page1.html

 

Probably not much help to you but though I'd mention that their is (or has been) one :unsure::oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got this, I think it's been sent to everyone who responded to the recent consultation, amongst others, and I'm sure they won't mind me putting it here for wider circulation (sorry, the formatting seems to have gone a bit mad):

 

Peter Taylor

Assistant Director

Development and Public Protection

New Town House

Buttermarket Street

Warrington

WA1 2NH

 

14 March 2012

 

Diana Terris

Chief Executive

 

 

Dear Sir / Madam

Peel Hall Farm / Land South of the M62

 

Thank you for your recent communication regarding the above site within the context of the LDF

Pre Publication Draft Core Strategy.

 

I am writing to explain what is happening with regard to the future of the open land in north

Warrington south of the M62. It would first be helpful to clear up some misunderstandings.

 

1. There are no proposals either in principle or in detail to build on the community amenity

known as Peel Hall Park. This is a well-used public park in which the Council has invested

and has no intention of ‘selling off’ for development. It is protected from development by

current planning policy.

 

2. Residents have not been consulted about a planning application for development of any of

the land in this area at the present time because no planning application has been

submitted. The landowner of this extensive area of land (Satnam Millennium Ltd) did

approach the Council as reported by Helen Jones MP. This was to explore the possibility of

developing housing on a relatively small area of the land in conjunction with proposals for

playing pitches and new facilities for a local football club. This did not however lead to a

planning application.

 

3. The map attached to this letter shows the area of land in question.

 

4. The landowner acquired the land from the former New Town Development Corporation

many years ago. The agricultural land price allegedly paid for the land at the time is

referred to by several residents, but this is irrelevant to the current situation.

 

5. The playing fields at Mill Lane/Ballater Drive are still owned by the Homes & Communities

Agency having been inherited from the Development Corporation.

 

6. The land was allocated for development in the New Town Outline Plan approved as long

ago as 1972 by the government of that time. For as long as the site has been in private

ownership, the owner has sought to get the land allocated for development in Plans or to

get planning permission.

 

7. To date the Council has managed to hold back the development of the land and

successfully argue against the need to allocate it for housing. On the other hand the

landowner has managed to prevent the Council from achieving the designation of the land

as Green Belt. In these circumstances the long term future of the land is undecided and no

circumstances have changed since the legal challenge to warrant including the site within

the Green Belt.

 

8. The Council has a duty to keep its Plans for the future development of the borough under

review. This means that the Council has to constantly re-assess whether its Plans remain

relevant, up-to-date, and in line with government policies and expectations. Circumstances

change and the Council’s Plans have to respond to these changes.

 

9. Since 2010 circumstances have begun to change and continue to change very significantly

at the moment. The coalition government is committed to making fundamental changes to

the way Councils have to prepare their development plans and deal with planning

applications. The clear priority is to encourage and support economic recovery through

private investment, and the construction of more houses is seen as a key element of

recovery. Indications are that if Local Plans are inadequate in any way, there will be a

‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ when planning applications are

submitted or considered on appeal. This means that there is a risk that the Council may

lose control over if and when the site comes forward and at what rate the site may be

developed.

 

10. A new planning strategy for the borough (known as the Core Strategy) is therefore being

prepared. This will replace the current strategy set out in the Unitary Development Plan,

adopted in 2006.

 

The emerging strategy:

 

• Maintains the general extent of the Green Belt established in the UDP and its detailed

boundaries except for a minor local alteration at Glazebury

• Proposes an average annual increase of 500 dwellings over the period to 2027

• Continues to prioritise the re-use of previously developed land and the regeneration of the

town’s older areas

• Takes account of the substantial volume of new housing that has permission but is not yet

built

• Relaxes restrictions on some housing development in built up areas outside of the older

areas of the town

• Identifies Omega as the main source of new economic development to create jobs, while

accepting that an element of mixed use possibly including some housing may be

appropriate

• Acknowledges that in order to meet the borough’s housing needs in the longer term, if

sufficient land can no longer be realistically identified in the urban areas of the borough, it

could be necessary to develop sites at the edge of the town that are not protected as

Green Belt. The relevant areas for consideration, if that is the case, are Peel Hall Farm

along with three areas in south Warrington. The process of identifying additional land is

deferred to a further Plan (known as a Site Allocations Development Plan Document) the

purpose of which would be to allocate sites as necessary using all the evidence available at

that time relating to all potential sites throughout the borough. It would also take into

account the detailed issues raised by residents relating to infrastructure, nature

conservation, traffic impacts, etc.

 

11. The new planning strategy for the borough (Core Strategy) is at an advanced stage but has

not yet been finalised.

 

12. The recent ‘informal’ consultation that was brought to your attention by the letter from

Helen Jones MP was publicised in the local press and on the Council website, and all

documents were made available in all libraries.

 

13. There have been similar previous consultations about the new planning strategy, most

recently in February 2009 and July 2010. These were also publicised and all documents

were made available in the same way.

 

14. Through the course of these consultations, Satnam Millennium Ltd has made contact with

the Council (as have many other interested parties) as they are entitled to do. The Council

is obliged to engage with all interested parties and consider their views. All views

expressed and the Council’s responses to them have been recorded and published, and

considered by the Executive Board.

 

15. With regard to Peel Hall Farm, Satnam Millennium Ltd has consistently sought to persuade

the Council to allocate the land for early development in the period up to 2027. There have

been discussions between the Company and Council Officers as is normal in these

situations.

 

16. The Council has consistently responded by disagreeing with the Company’s view on the

grounds that development is not necessary at the present time, and setting out the

approach summarised above.

 

The comments received during the current consultation will be reported to the Council’s Executive

Board on 12 March 2012. The Board will consider whether changes should be made to the

Strategy before it is endorsed by full Council and made available for a final ‘formal’ public

consultation that will be well publicised at the time. This is likely to lead to an Examination in Public

before an independent Inspector.

 

As you have commented at this stage, you will be directly notified of this formal consultation using

the contact details you have supplied. It is currently anticipated that this will take place during May

and June 2012 after the local elections.

 

May I also take this opportunity to remind you that our offices are always open to the public to

discuss any planning issues.

 

Yours sincerely

Peter Taylor

Assistant Director

 

 

Sorry for long post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I really understand all that as it seems a little contradictive in parts but maybe that is just the way I read things.

 

But I would certainly not gain any confidence myself from receiving anything that ends in the words....

 

"As you have commented at this stage, you will be directly notified of this formal consultation using the contact details you have supplied. It is currently anticipated that this will take place during May

and June 2012 after the local elections

 

Why after the local elections and why not before? Cynical me says 'been there, done that' and have seen many times how local elections can suddenly change a parties/persons supposed support or stance against something once they have appeased the public and got their vote :blink::evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I really understand all that as it seems a little contradictive in parts but maybe that is just the way I read things.

 

But I would certainly not gain any confidence myself from receiving anything that ends in the words....

 

"As you have commented at this stage, you will be directly notified of this formal consultation using the contact details you have supplied. It is currently anticipated that this will take place during May

and June 2012 after the local elections

 

Why after the local elections and why not before? Cynical me says 'been there, done that' and have seen many times how local elections can suddenly change a parties/persons supposed support or stance against something once they have appeased the public and got their vote :blink::evil:

It's partly because of "purdah" rules during elections. "The general principle set out in the Code of Practice is that a local authority must not at any time publish any material that in whole or in part appears to be designed to affect support for a political party. Publicity is defined quite widely: The Code … covers all decisions by a local authority on publicity and most public relations activities, such as paid advertising and leaflet campaigns, and local authority sponsorship or exhibitions and conferences, as well as assistance to others to issue publicity’. Given that all parties have made this a political issue, Council officers no doubt would prefer not to do anything that might seem to influence the elections. (It doesn't stop individual councillors making it an issue!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, and that had not occurred to me.

 

Nationally I can understand the rules of Purdah beinf in force to some extent but locally I'm afraid I can't.

 

I really can't see why residents can't have their own say via a consultation or be given information prior to any elections as we are not bound by 'purdah' rules.

 

Lets face it how on earth can people vote for an individual person up for election or a party if silence is suddenly ruled and they don't know the stance or views of someone up for election (or more importantly their bosses stance) on things which may be important to them [the residents] locally :?

 

As long as any consultation or any information given by the council/councillors is factual, not misleading, non political and above board etc then surely there's no problem from the councils side by being open and honest.

 

I've always thought and said that 'party politics' have no place at local level as it does more harm than good most of the time but alas it still exists.

 

Your comment about council officers preferring not to do anything that might seem to influence the elections did make me smile though as the 'officers' have always seem to be the ones making all the decisions anyway so it doesn't really matter which overall party is in charge or which new party member joins the ranks anyway :wink:

 

Rules are rules though I guess and are there for a 'reason' :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested there is a public consultation next week (arranged by Satnam the developers) re their latest draft plans to build 150 houses on Peel Hall.

(that's a bit of a come down as wasn't it well over 1000 homes last time?)

 

Anyway their

Wednesday 11th July at St Bridget’s Church 3pm to 8pm

 

and

 

Saturday July 14 in the Golden Square 9.30am to 5.30pm

 

There's also a community information line on 0161 247 8417

 

 

I thought the Peel Hall land now had some sort of protection on it since they last tried or is this a different plot. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps warrington council have lost the last plot when they got rid of all the planning application records. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satnam

 

a joint partnership between Satan and Saddam perhaps..... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested there is a public consultation next week (arranged by Satnam the developers) re their latest draft plans to build 150 houses on Peel Hall.

(that's a bit of a come down as wasn't it well over 1000 homes last time?)

 

Not so much a come-down as possibly a new tactive - bit by bit, stealth by stealth, a creeping development. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satnam should be told to fo

 

this land should be green belt protected Mr Taylor take note and do this or go somewhere else to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No just a football pitch and facilities Obs (not joking by the way) :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, you're such a cynic.

 

Anyway, I went to the consultation at St Bridget’s yesterday, hard to know where to start, really.

 

First thing that struck me was the number of people attending, and the level of anger amongst attendants: it’s probably water off a duck’s back to Satnam, but them boys took one hell of a beating yesterday. Though I’m sure they’re getting well paid for it.

 

No representation from Winwick Athletic: seeing as they’re one of the main beneficiaries in all of this, I’d have hoped that at least someone from there would have had the courage of their convictions. Maybe they’ll turn up at Golden Square on Saturday where the ride will be easier.

 

So, the deal is, 150 properties, about a third of which (I work out as 50, but Satnam wouldn’t be so specific) will be affordable housing. This will be a mix of Housing Association (which virtually guarantees it’s affordable), and, er, cheaper houses. There will be “robust” checks in place to ensure these properties don’t end up as Buy-to-Let properties. These will be built right next to one of the busiest and most congested stretches of motorway in the UK. The rest (still pretty close to the same motorway) will be the usual identikit market housing.

 

Access will be along Mill Lane, which currently allows access to around 50 properties. Satnam’s Highways Engineer reckons Mill Lane can easily accommodate a 300% increase in traffic (ignoring the construction stuff), though he wouldn’t comment on any figures above this. So, I have to assume that around 200 properties is the maximum Mill Lane could accommodate, in which case there’d be no room for access to any further developments on Peel Hall through Mill Lane.

 

They know this because they did a traffic count.

 

In the school holidays.

 

The only selling point Satnam have to the residents of Cinnamon Brow and Houghton Green, is sporting facilities. These will be provided at Windermere playing fields, on land already belonging to the council. They are promised to be new and improved, but there’s no land contribution from Satnam for this.

 

The residents of Cinnamon Brow and Houghton Green already have a fantastic recreational space with the playing fields on Ballater Drive: no cost, access any time you like, no booking, just rock up with your mates and have a kick about.

 

There are no discernible benefits - and some very tangible negatives – to the local residents of this area with this proposed development.

 

If the Local Plan Core Strategy is to have any credibility at all, then it’s clear that now isn’t the time to be allowing any development on the Peel Hall site.

 

There’s a murmuring of a consensus around here that it’s a done deal: if that’s the case, then WBC will be shown to be either incompetent or corrupt.

 

Obs may be right, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a term that was introduced into the planning system called "planning gain" - unfortunately, in practise, this was used as an excuse by cash strapped Councils to accept sweeteners and disregard their prepared local plans. Plus, Councils have tended to sell themselves fairly cheaply in this regard. The idea also, that some housing will be "affordable", affordable to whom? Recall the Lymm development, where the houses went up for £200k a piece, but they included some "affordable" ones at £100k! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, Mr Satnam's put in his planning application for around 150 houses, you can find it by clicking on this link:

 

http://planning.warrington.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display

 

and pasting this number into the search box: 2012/20610

 

Some local residents were notified last week by letter, but so far it's only been given wider publicity here:

 

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/14006/1/MP-urges-residents-to-make-voices-heard/Page1.html (well done WWW!)

 

Anyway, for anyone who's thinking of making an objection, you might consider including these points:

 

The current Unitary Development Plan (HOU1/4) states that:

 

“Planning permission will not be granted for housing development on greenfield sites”.

 

The Peel Hall site is a Greenfield site.

 

The emerging local core strategy provides a sensible, long term approach to meet housing needs, and clearly favours previously developed land before any Greenfield sites. This strategy also recommends a holistic approach to any large scale developments, and does not support piecemeal development plans, which cause long term disruption for neighbours.

 

We’re lucky to be able to enjoy large open playing fields on Ballater Drive, as well as the new facilities at nearby Jubilee Park: this means that the proposed improved facilities at Windermere (already council owned) don’t provide enough of a benefit when balanced against the negative aspects of the proposed development.

 

 

Satnam have spent years putting this together, employing planning and legal professionals to present his case.

 

We've got about three weeks, objections should be received by 3rd October.

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  

×