Cleopatra Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Build on the moors. Plenty of available land there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 ..... or start building UP, in Town Centres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Build on the moors. Plenty of available land there. ooooh you don't wanna go out on the moors...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted March 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 There is plenty of land for houses the old fordton leisure centre for one The site opposite fordton for another Stop building warehouses and empty office buildings there is one in particular that has been empty for at least five years on cromwell avenue. so NO NO NO to Peel park area.t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Baz ...we have people on here moaning about there not being enough houses... Who are these then? Is it not really a case that Winwick residents don't want to be finally joined up with Warrington via Orford? <hands Baz the Tinfoil Hat of the Year Award> ...here we have someone wanting to build houses... I don't think he does, my money's on him selling to one of the big housebuilders if/when he gets planning permission. That's how he makes his money, he really couldn't give a toss about affordable housing supply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Fugs.... you have your opinions and that is your right.... You may wish to hand me the "tinfoil hat" as you call it, but please make sure you have your nimby one on in its place.... sounds awfully like Winwick don't want to be joined to Orford.... and considering there are already houses all around, it won't make much difference by the sounds of it.... Even if he does want to sell the land on after getting planning permission; what is the problem with that? If people build houses and that is what is needed then so be it.... just saying like..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 There's quite a bit of land behind the town hall threy could build a few houses on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 about as likely as them knocking the pyramids down, grinding them up for hrdcore and tarmacking over the spaces left behind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Won't the motorway still be between Orford and Winwick?( or Whingewick as some have come to know it. ) Even though the Councillors have voted against the plan/permission I wouldn't let your guard down for a second as they also voted against the plans to develop Bewsey Old Hall and the surrounding ancient woodland. The Developers appealed and that is when their highly paid barristers get to rip the doo doo out of our inept Council officers and we all know how that decision went. It is also when the big, big money starts to be spent and lets face it we haven't much spare dosh knocking about which puts the officers off the whole process. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Yeah, know what you mean, PJ, ta. <taps nose> Baz - Even if he does want to sell the land on after getting planning permission; what is the problem with that? Well, there's the rub. This is land that was sold from public ownership as farmland for around half a million. Lots of years and resources have been spent trying to keep it as such. Without changing the current infrastructure (as in the current application) it's only still usable as farmland. It's reported to be worth around 60 million with planning permission. Forgive me if I feel that public assets have not been protected here. Nimby's are right sometimes y'know. Oh, and the developer's a nimby too - he lives in Gloucestershire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 Suggest folk read the Unitary Development Plan, to ascertain the status of the land - is it green belt (in which case, no case to answer) OR has it been allocated for release at some point in the future (in which case it will eventually be released for housing)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 <cough> Please click on the link in #90: http://forum.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/index.php?/topic/6836-talks-in-progress-for-peel-hall/page-5 No, it isn't Green Belt. It used to be, and some lazy conveyancers are still describing it as such (new neighbours said so). Satnam took WBC to court in 2009 and had the Green Belt designation removed: http://forum.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/index.php?/topic/6836-talks-in-progress-for-peel-hall/page-1 (link in #20) ...has it been allocated for release at some point in the future (in which case it will eventually be released for housing)? er, I think so. Core Strategy not approved yet though. "Eventually" is the operative word there, and it's easily possible. But Warrington doesn't need it just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Oh, and I have to ask Baz, if you're so not bothered about this, why are you, er, bothering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Oh, and I have to ask Baz, if you're so not bothered about this, why are you, er, bothering? Perhaps he is bothered but about different things than you are. You want a field to stay as a field , (well for as long as you want it to at least) and he sees a different use for it. I can see both sides tbh, one gives us much needed housing and jobs in the construction industry and the other somewhere nice to walk the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Perhaps, just doesn't look like it from #91 is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Perhaps, just doesn't look like it from #91 is all. you should expect people to be confused if you reply to a post (#91) made half a year ago and don't even reference it. Looking at it from an outside, unbiased point of view I can see why developing this site for housing is being considered. Its not green belt, its inaccessible to the public anyway, it is surrounded by houses and a motorway. How much the landowner makes from this is irrelevant to your argument Fugtifino and just makes you sound a tad jealous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Er, but I did reference it, and I'd hope that Baz at least would remember. You sure you're not biased though? Development isn't being considered - yet, at least not by WBC. It isn't Green Belt, but it was when I moved here, I think I've every right to be a bit peeved about that. It could be argued that as it's surrounded by houses and a motorway then that's more reason for keeping it as an open green space. There is no current suitable access to this site for a development of this size (as has been noted by WBC's highways department) and nobody's come up with a way around this yet. The profit margin Satnam stands to make may be irrelevant in planning terms, but not irrelevant to public interest. Baz said he couldn't be bothered to read the current UDP, have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 You sure you're not biased though? It isn't Green Belt, but it was when I moved here, I think I've every right to be a bit peeved about that. lol Baz said he couldn't be bothered to read the current UDP, have you? Perhaps like you I will wait until the development is in my back yard. Or perhaps I have read it and disagree with your views or perhaps I just see things a little differently to you as I am emotionally and financially unattached to the whole argument and able to approach it in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 So that's a no then, righto. It doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree with my views or not, the current UDP states that: Planning permission will not be granted for housing development on greenfield sites. That should be the end of it, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 The last Government gave priority to the release of "brown field" sites and agreed "housing figures" for LAs, with phased release periods. However, in the light of the changing strategic housing need - for infrastructure employment as well as shelter - being considered by this Government. "Eventually" may be brought forward ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 So that's a no then, righto. It doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree with my views or not, the current UDP states that: Planning permission will not be granted for housing development on greenfield sites. That should be the end of it, really. "and the award for "Mr. Gullible 2013" goes to the man in the shiny hat" If it was so simple there would be no need for all you residents to be protesting against it now would there. For what its worth I have read the UDP and I know what it says. I also know what the UDP said when Urban Splash ripped the Council a new one regarding the Bewsey Old Hall debacle. I am not for the development of Peel Hall to be honest but wouldn't be surprised if it went ahead pretty soon. I also think that pretty soon swathes of Omega land will become available for housing, with sustainability and affordability being the buzz words to justify going against the long held Council "Vision" for the site. Will you and your Nimby pals join the fight against that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Of course I know it's not so simple, that's why I used the word "should" rather than "is". We're objecting against a proposed development, as is our right regardless of any UDP. Will you and your Nimby pals join the fight against that? Dunno, would you want us to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 Well we could get Geoff to go newt hunting but the rest of you will probably hang up your pitch forks and torches as soon as the issue at hand is outside of your line of sight,. To be honest I think Omega is an ideal place for housing, with plenty of land spare for industrial use. Perhaps that's a solution, build houses on Omega and then use the Peel Hall field for siting the much anticipated incinerator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 or mega-prison!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 <interlude> Here's a timely diversion from Bored.com: http://www.officegamespot.com/freegames/trollface-sniper.htm 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.