Dizzy Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 exiting from Ellesmere Road onto Chester Road. A rapid accelerating car and sharp reactions...and an element of bravery are required, otherwise you can end up waiting half an hour. So officer... the reason I was driving at high speed and wheel spinning out of the junction of Ellesmere Road / Chester Road, regardless of oncoming traffic, was that at 9.30pm on Sunday 29th June 2008 I read the above post on Warrington Worldwide Forum where I was advised by the above Warrington Borough Councillor that to avoid the usual delays this was my best course of action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted June 30, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Dismayed,The worrying thing about that site is the entrance and exit. If they had put it opposite Taylor Street and installed traffic lights, it wouldn't have caused much of a problem. But they ain't doing that. The traffic from the site will have a hell of a job trying to get to town in the rush hour. How short people's memories are . The original Peel Holdings application did propose to re-use the existing site entrance to the SCA timber yard that is directly opposite Taylor Street, and they also proposed to signal control this junction making it very easy to get in/out of the junction. However, Warrington Council's highway engineers decided that this set-up would lead to unacceptable queue lengths along Chester Road that would interfere with the free-flow of traffic N/S along Chester Road and so demanded that the site entrance be moved 33m North to the position it is now in (as part of the David Wilson Homes scheme). So it's nothing to do with the developer - the site access that has been approved is everything to do with the Council's own engineers As for phasing development - a sensible move really. The developer is covering its bases by limiting its exposure to poor market conditions. If/when the market picks up they will be able to accelerate production in time to catch the bounce on house prices. I like the point about "money-grabbing" - how else are they supposed to make their money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Thanks McBain for clarifying that. I will pass it on to people I know have a concern that they did voice, but obviously Highways know best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 McB, Slightly different site. Can you tell me what is happening to the old Dairy site (recently Polar Ford) next to the Co-op (town end) on Knutsford Rd? It is being cleared, but we can't find out what is going there. Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 exiting from Ellesmere Road onto Chester Road. A rapid accelerating car and sharp reactions...and an element of bravery are required, otherwise you can end up waiting half an hour. So officer... the reason I was driving at high speed and wheel spinning out of the junction of Ellesmere Road / Chester Road, regardless of oncoming traffic, was that at 9.30pm on Sunday 29th June 2008 I read the above post on Warrington Worldwide Forum where I was advised by the above Warrington Borough Councillor that to avoid the usual delays this was my best course of action Don't you be grassing on me....I gave you my suggestion in strict confidence...no names no pack drill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 I can't quite grasp the concept put forward by Obs regarding the council issuing a CPO against any empty privately owned property to be used to house council and homeless tenants. WHY? if someone has bought a proprty as an investment why should it be assumed that a council can take it away just because they have an inability to provide for their homeless people? If I had the means to buy a house now for my 7 year old for his future; I would do. I wouldn't expect the council to come along and take it away just because I choose not to let it out to twenty Poles and a Latvian... that isn't fair surely? You wouldn't expect the guy who buys a rare old Ferrari or Rolls Royce as an investment to offer it up as a dial a ride car because the council hasn't got enough buses to ship its pensioners to the day care centre would you? Why not go the whole hog and CPO part of a house.... I have a bit of space in my garage and a spare bedroom; would you like to fill all the spare bedrooms in the town with homeless people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Simple Baz: lots of empty houses/flats (now moving into negative equity anyway) plus a growing number of homeless folk (not least cos they've been evicted for not paying their mortgage) - answer, CPO the empty properties to provide cheap rented homes for the homeless - sorted. It's a bit like owning a food mountain in Ethiopia; maybe a good investment for the sprog, but if it's distributed it can save lots of other sprogs from starving to death! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 Well said Obs. I think many people who bought off plan and have nose dived into despair due to the financial crash would be delighted to sell their property to the Council, or Housing Association. There are problems though. A lot of empty property are flats - often tiny and frankly not well built, so they would be a poor long term investment for the Council. Plus, lenders won't allow owners to sell if they can't redeem the mortgage - they would rather repossess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 It does annoy me that the council continue to allow developers to develop whilst also allowing them to hand over more and more flats (sorry appartments ) as part of the affordable housing quota. Take Walton Locks development.... 250 units.... 48 of which will be affordable (ie rented/private social landlord owned ) ... of these 24 will be houses and the other 24 will be FLATS contained within in 4-5 storey prison blocks ... being built over 5 years remember Oh and by the way out of the WHOLE WL development 144 of the units will be FLATS and the houses will be in the region of ?320,000 + ... Would you buy one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 NO! It has been said that Peel want to utilise the Ship Canal, which means more canal traffic. Can you imagine the vibration every time a ship goes past? Not a lot of fun in the middle of the night, if you have to get up early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 1, 2008 Report Share Posted July 1, 2008 "Affordability" supposed to refer to a range of housing types, NOT just "flats". The Council have been quite pathetic in not insisting on an adequate quota, and on the basis of a vague notion of "affordability. The main reason for the building of "flats", is demographic; with more folk living a single life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirgle Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Simple Baz: lots of empty houses/flats (now moving into negative equity anyway) plus a growing number of homeless folk (not least cos they've been evicted for not paying their mortgage) - answer, CPO the empty properties to provide cheap rented homes for the homeless - sorted. It's a bit like owning a food mountain in Ethiopia; maybe a good investment for the sprog, but if it's distributed it can save lots of other sprogs from starving to death! So the government just takes anything they don't think you're using 'correctly'? You've got all those books and you've read most of them, we'll be requisitioning those for the local library. That TV looks far too big for just the 4 of you, it'll be perfect for the school down the road. If Baz wanted to rent his house out to people as cheap housing then he would, he doesn't need the government to do it for him. And if he was going to buy a house for his son, I believe he has a 22 year old son that would benefit from it a lot more anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted July 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Dis - that's interesting about the split of affordable housing units on the Walton Lock development. As I recall, in the signed section 106 Agreement there are supposed to be 32 houses and only 16 flats (see page 1 of the Agreement). Has the Council agreed to vary the Agreement to facilitate this poorer mix of units Personally I think it is a complete try-on by David Wilson Homes - such a variation will require a trip back to the planning committee and I doubt that the Council will want more flats than were originally agreed. As for house prices of around ?320,000+ I agree that this is steep - particularly for Latchford West. Yes, it will be a lovely site once developed but that is not worth a premium of ?100,000 or so, particularly in the current economic climate. Still, Barratt Developments (which owns David Wilson Homes) is currently going down the toilet and will soon have to be raising some emergency equity (just like Taylor Wimpey) so I suspect that the developers will have to "get real" with regard to pricing its product or it will go to the wall. Peter T - having stood next to the Ship Canal many a time when a ship has gone past there is NO vibration at all - what are you on about man Are you saying that you don't want to get more freight traffic off the roads I also think that Squirgle has a point - where would the CPO of private property stop What if the LPA decides that your garden is too large and, combined with snippets of other people's gardens, would create the ideal location for a bail hostel. Nowt you can do - it's for the greater good you understand No doubt this will prove fertile ground for the only real winners in any sort of Government intervention, i.e. the Human Rights solicitors and barristers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Merely a question of whether you believe the interests of the many exceed those of the few! And CPOs pay out, usually at the market price. And personally, I have donated books to the local library from my personal library! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I suppose the difference is that you donated them Observer you didnt have them taken from you in exchange for what somebody else told you they were worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 As I understand it; CPOs are effected at the current "market price" - it could be worse, in China they just bulldoze any houses that are in the way of a major project; assuming of course that an earthquake hasn't done the job for them! It's totally hypothetical in any event; as no Government has plans to invest in social housing provision, despite rises in the waiting lists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Dis - Peter T - having stood next to the Ship Canal many a time when a ship has gone past there is NO vibration at all - what are you on about man Are you saying that you don't want to get more freight traffic off the roads Personal experience living in Latchford Without some years ago. As for the increase on the canal, I think it's a great idea. Now lets get more onto Freight trains as well and free up the motorways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 McB...... Peter is right, there definately IS vibration when a large ship passes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Only when it's a "love boat"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 The vibration is not that bad though. It certainly wouldn't make a house fall down and it does have a plus side cos you can tell when the big ones are coming so you don't miss them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 4, 2008 Report Share Posted July 4, 2008 Some ships are worse than others. Our newest ones are so quiet they probably wouldn't even wake the birds in the trees! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I guess I am less sensitive to "vibrations" than others As for CPO, the compensation offered is not at market value because it is always disputed by those who are subject to a CPO. The actual process of getting compensation can take years. Meanwhile - you have lost an asset and don't have any cash, whereas the Council has both your former asset and the money... equitable? Not really. As for donating books, this is something I am going to be doing - I have too many of them now (a consequence of liking to own a book rather than borrowing it for a while). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Presume the dispute would arise because those who are the subject of a CPO would believe the offer wasn't the "market value"?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 See this "confused" Government are planning to offer "help" to folk threatened with repossession IE: shared equity schemes etc; but no matter what equation you try to apply, if their outgoings exceed there income, any "help" will amount to a subsidy, using OUR money. Plus, if such schemes recreate demand, prices will start to rise again. Notice the LibDems in Liverpool have taken my advice and are buying up empty properties to rent out - much more rational. 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.