observer Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Housing need, is clearly for "affordable" units; unfortunately, no one has come up with a clear and concise definition of the term; and the planning system appears incapable of ensuring sufficient "affordable" units are built. As the majority of folk simply can't afford a mortgage, it would seem a return to "Council" housing would house them and reduce demand generally, thus reducing prices further up the food chain. However, none of the main Parties are prepared to offer this, and the Tory obsession with folk "owning" their own houses, makes them ideologically incapable of doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Why do people class it as a "Tory Obsession" to own a house? Show me any Labour politician that lives in a council house. Do any Warrington Labour Councillors live in council houses? I know the likes of ex-mayor Jim Hayes and a few of the Bewsey Councillors used to do but now most seem to live away from the constituency they represent. My next door neighbour was Labour Councillor for Fernhead and lived in a big detached house in Westbrook; drove a land rover and went fox-hunting and shooting.... Do you live in a council house Obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Baz, IF one can afford to buy - fine (which applies irrespective of one's politics). However, a significant number of folk can't afford to buy, and currently languish on waiting lists or have to hopefully find decent private landlords, or live with Mom & Dad. So it seems rather pointless building houses for sale, when most can't afford to buy. The latest Tory initiative was to help middle class folk onto the housing ladder, by easing the mortgage deposit situation, thus increasing demand and inflating prices - which was precisely the kind of irresponsible antics of the US sub-prime mortgage market that kicked off the financial crash - which demonstrates their Tory obsession with home purchase. IF they were serious about housing folk they would be funding Social Housing providers to build more houses for rent; which would relax demand on the housing market as a whole and thus reduce price inflation. Such a massive house building (for need) programme would have the added advantage of creating employment, with more folk paying taxes rather than consuming taxes on the dole. All fairly logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 It all really depends on whether land can be found for this "massive" house building project against the massed protests of dog walkers who believe their right to a field to walk the dog on trumps other peoples' rights to a house to live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Fair point Asp, in the context of Peel Hall; which raises the fundamental question of whether we build out or up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Sort of still on topic (I think) ....... but does anyone happen to know the actual number of new 'homes' that have actually been built in Warrington over the past say 10 years (or have had planning approved, either outline or full, and are still awaiting actual development) and where they all are? Out of those how many homes have been/were deemed as 'affordable' at the planning stage ? Also what 106's were/have been agreed/offered at the time etc etc. I've been trying to find that out for months but for some reason I can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Dunno Diz. What I do know though is that WBC are ahead of their targets for building affordable homes based on current measures (though Satnam are trying to change the period in which this is measured through the Core Strategy). http://warrington-consult.limehouse.co.uk/file/2474649 I agree with obs, what's needed is a massive programme of building social housing: affordable housing carries no guarantee that it will never end up in the hands of buy-to-let landlords. It all really depends on whether land can be found for this "massive" house building project against the massed protests of dog walkers who believe their right to a field to walk the dog on trumps other peoples' rights to a house to live in. Well, there are sites in Warrington that are big enough for the kind of development that's needed, Peel Hall being one of them. That kind of housing doesn't bring enough profit for the developers though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Core Strategy hearings start at the end of April. Here's the key question for this thread, as formulated by the Inspector: Matter 1 - Overall strategy, housing provision and distribution and sustainability 1.12 Strategic long-term development locations: Should sites such as Omega, Lingley Mere, Appleton Cross, Grappenhall Heys, Peel Hall, Pewterspear Green, Waterfront and Arpley Meadows which are earmarked for development beyond the plan period (policies CS7, CS9 and CVS10), be included within the Plan, given that the Council is confident that it can achieve its strategic housing targets without these sites? However, the Inspector may still expect the Council to come up with a pecking order for which of these sites could be brought forward if other sites don't materialise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Yes, I think they have to be included Steve, but it should be made clear that they will only be released if necessary. In terms of any pecking order, that could be decided by which developer offers the best overall plan to meet Warrington's needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Perhaps it is ear-marked for the travellers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 #212. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Perhaps it is ear-marked for the travellers. that would actually work quite well thinking about it.... close to the motorway and close to a large population in Winwick and Orford to sell their plastic fascia's and tarmac too.... good thinking Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Blimey the jungle drums and rumours will be spreading like wildfire now and I wonder how many people will think that's actually true #212 was posted on 1st April.... but thinking about it was that just a coincidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 <cough> #214 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 10, 2013 Report Share Posted April 10, 2013 Yep <hickup and three scratches of the left temple> although the poster of #214 (following on from #212) is now also saying the same elsewhere ... without the reference to the known fool though ... so drums and rumours will still inevitably beat for the ill or newly 'informed' <winky wonky face> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted May 27, 2013 Report Share Posted May 27, 2013 <bump> The appeal hearing starts at 10.00 am on Wednesday morning. That's this Wednesday, 29th May. It's at Jubilee Park. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 Application refused. Well done and the biggest of thanks to Margaret, Geoff and Ste. And thanks to (some) WWW posters for your support. Next stop, Eric Pickles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 No - Pickles (his department) should have signed the covering letter. Judicial review would be Satnam's only course now. If the Core Strategy inspector also agrees that Warrington's housing supply is enough without building on greenfield land, then (appropriate metaphor) that kicks Peel Hall well into the long grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 Ah, thanks Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 For those who are interested, here's the decision document: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.5645491&NAME=/Decision.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 and our report on it http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/16319/1/Inspector-rejects-Peel-Hall-housing-plan/Page1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted July 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 Congratulations to all who opposed. Margaret did great job. As did Geof. perhaps Taylor and planning dept should be reviewed and assessed for causing unnecessary distress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 Hello threadstarter wahl! And, yes, what you said. Taylor's long gone though, and I wouldn't be too hasty in condemnation of all things to do with WBC's planning dept. I can think of a better result, but it's in the realms of fantasy, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Oh well hope they get a similar result when they submit plans for only 140 houses, 130 houses, etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Not to worry anyone, but there was just a hint in the inspector's report that if eventually land were needed for housing, a larger scheme (including its own facilities) might overcome the difficulties of a small site with awkward access! 24. "Whilst this might be addressed as part of a much larger scheme, and the Draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2012 (SHLAA) looks at a larger scheme, that would need to be linked to a comprehensive plan rather than piecemeal development. The substantial size of that site would warrant consideration as part of preparation of a local plan which would consider strategic choices. Although I note that two smaller areas of land are identified in the SHLAA as being sustainable, the SHLAA is not part of the development plan and those sites are not allocations in any development plan." 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.