Jump to content

Greenalls Plans - The Return - and Consultation


Dizzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dont know if anyone is interested....

 

....but the new plans for the previously refused Greenalls site housing (Loushers Lane/Wilderspool Casueway) development are on show over the next 2 days.... residents consultation and all that :roll:

 

Whatever happened to the previous reasons for refusal such as oversupply of new housing in the borough..

 

ooh yes Peels appealed against Walton Locks... submitted new plans at the same time whcih were successful and approved so appeal was dropped..... thus opening the floodgates to ever man and his dog to jump on the bandwagen and build more expensive 'affordable?' homes in the borough !!!!

 

GOD HELP OUR ROADS...SCHOOL...DOCTORS...BLAH BLAH

 

Brief details below.....

 

'Residents can view ambitious plans to redevelop the Greenalls site on Loushers Lane this weekend.

 

The company is to move to a new bottling plant in Risley and wants to hear residents' views on the way forward.

 

An application to build houses on the site was blocked by councillors earlier in the year.

 

The company is hosting a two-day exhibition as part of the consultation excercise.

 

This will take place in the hospitality lounge at the Loushers Lane entrance on Friday, between 5pm and 8 pm and Saturday 10.30am to 2.30pm.'

 

... and yes my mood is getting worse as the day progresses :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was exciting ..... :wink:

 

Possible doctors/dentist... good thinking :wink:

 

.. and two storey family homes (although they seemed nothing more than crammed in boxes with no character at all. Perhaps Mcbain you have been right all along :wink: )

 

I had expected something a little more inspiring especially considering that the recently developed Greenalls site near morrissons which has just been completed is very tastfull indeed and rather well designed.

 

But credit where credits due... Greenall's have tried to suggest various possibilities that will appeal to most people but that's where the 'credit' ends as I personally feel that it is nothing more than clever marketing and a show of apparently taking in residents opinions into consideration prior to any real design plans being drawn up :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignore everything.... there was I feeling that I had actually been consulted and by some very nice Greenalls bods too !

 

Stupid me... turns out that those running the show DIDNT work for Greenalls, they DON'T live in the area at all and know NOTHING about Warringon area at all.

 

They were nothing more than a PR Company "PR'ing" to make people feel like they had been consulted :(:(

 

[ 07.10.2007, 21:48: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by McBain:

Hey Dismayed, given that Peel's "Design & Acces Statement" ran to over fifty pages, I think that we should be expecting something pretty voluminous from Greenalls! A crappy 10 page pamphlet is probably what we'll get however :D )

 

I was also amazed to see Peels had ditched the 7 storey glass/metal type structures and replaced them (and the other builds) with what seem to now match in with the other newly built development which mimics the old Greenalls refurbished Clock Tower buildings (which I believe is listed)near Morrisons and other listed/older architectural buildings in the area. Pity those designing the new school 'box' didnt look on the same doorstep for design inspiration eh?

 

Aslo rather ironic that Peels have taken into account the old Greenalls Building design and yet Greenalls haven't with their plans eh?

 

... message to all developers..... WE STILL DONT WANT YOU HERE .. WE HAVE ENOUGH ALREADY !! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Message to all elected Councillors that sit on the Development Control committee - for God's sake, if you are too thick to understand the issues in front of you, SAY SO! At least this way there is a slim chance we might allow those that do understand to conduct a meaningful debate instead of playing to the gallery on issues that are not relevant :redmad:

 

As for developers having "money and clout", is it really that simple, or is it a case that the planning officers and (more frequently) the committee's decisions being very poorly argued, having little coherence (because of the dramatically dumbed-down committee report format) and doing little more than revealing the utter division amongst Council departments about how to respond to (let alone guide) development proposals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by observer:

Message to all objectors - the Developers have the money and the clout! :wink:

So what's the point of having a Development Control Committee at all then :wink: They are a waste of time but they do exist...

In my opinion they are merely puppets putting on a show and who's strings are pulled from higher up but nevertheless THEY [Dev Control] are the people voicing the decisions and as such should be accountable.

 

Just because the developers have the money shouldn't mean they have more clout than anyone else applying for planning permission.... and surely the Council themselves have more clout than the developers anyway !!!

 

..unless of course the council's number one priority and concern is merely what they can gain by way of legal backhanders rather than what is actually best for the public and our town! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dismayed:

 

 

Just because the developers have the money shouldn't mean they have more clout than anyone else applying for planning permission.... and surely the Council themselves have more clout than the developers anyway !!!

 

..unless of course the council's number one priority and concern is merely what they can gain by way of legal backhanders rather than what is actually best for the public and our town! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to get back on topic here (although I could happily spend hours talking about the ineptitude of certain committee members and the downright disgraceful quality of reports that are submitted by officers), I will be very interested in seeing Greenalls' responses to:

 

1) the requirement for Affordable Housing. The Council's recently adopted SPD says that 20% of total provision is the minimum that it will accept, but the Council will actively support schemes that deliver 50% or more.

 

2) the need for the site to be redeveloped without delay - exactly what is it that means this site cannot lie fallow for a few years until the oversupply situation eases? If it's just a case of the Greenalls business needing a cash injection - since when did private business finance become a material consideration?

 

3) the need to produce an exemplary design that responds positively to its context in a fashion that will actually enhance it. From what Dismayed says, it sounds as though Greenalls' has fallen short of the mark here.

 

I would like to say that I expect to be able to inspect all of the documents on line thanks to the Council's document scanning system, but I know for a fact that the documents that are put up will be incomplete, out of order, poorly scanned and generally as inaccessible as possible so as to minimise the chance that someone might be provided with the chance to ask some relevant planning questions :redmad:

 

When is Warrington Council going to realise that merely bunging all documents to a 3rd party company for scanning and then randomly distributing them on the Council network is not consistent with the Council's statutory obligation to make sure all documents that comprise a planning application are accessible?

 

[ 11.10.2007, 09:27: Message edited by: McBain ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a Wilderspool Resident's Association tonight, and the Head of Development Control/Acting Planning Policy Manager gave a talk about Development and mentioned Greenalls and Naylor's.

and the Arpley and Bridgefoot AAP.

 

What surprised and confused me, was the comment that Community Benefits, meant highway improvements and the like, NOT Community Centres and such.

 

The confusing part was that Carrington Park Developers gave a substantial amount to St. Peters Residents Association. And other areas have benefited from this sort of thing. Unfortunately things had dragged out that long that questions were kept to a minimum. :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by McBain:

...If it's just a case of the Greenalls business needing a cash injection - since when did private business finance become a material consideration?

Money/finance are not material considerations however they can be used as such when needed... for example when it suits the Council (as was the case with the second planning application to demolish and rebuild Stockton Heath School).

 

They scared everone including Dev Control into thinking they would loose the funding when the fact was that they WOULDN'T ! (or should I say pay it back as the council had received it the year before and put it in the pot :wink: )

 

Lying toerags :wink:

Ooop.. back to Greenalls sorry :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with you wholeheartedly there Dismayed, it matters not one jot whether Greenalls remains in Warrington. Being honest, the minute it suited their business plan, Greenalls would up sticks and leave anyway. To suggest that a corporate entity like Greenalls is emotionally tied to Warrington is utterly fascile.

 

When Peter refers to "Naylor's" I assume he means the former SCA timber yard that Peel obtained planning permission to redevelop?

 

I think I am fairly safe in predicting that the Greenalls application will not be subject to anything like the scrutiny or hard bargaining that characterised the Peel scheme (48 affordable houses all RSL managed). The deluded Councillors will put their rose-tinted spectacles on and think that Greenalls in Warrington actually matters, when in fact it doesn't. In a few years time the employers on Omega are going to matter a whole lot more!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dismayed - haven't you learned by now that the views of the public simply do not matter when it comes to planning decisions? (unless of course it is near local election time, and most developers are savvy enough to deliberately engineer their proposals so that they do not come to committee during this period).

 

It is clear that the Council is doing everything it can to make getting hold of vital information harder and harder in order to dissuade effective public participation in planning matters. :angelwings:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya McBain

 

Of course I've learned that... seen it happen enough over the past few years with a lot of important public issues.

 

Still not going to stop me banging on about them though... they may not be willing to 'listen' but they will certainly hear... then ignore :D:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange how the Council can choose to not apply its policies to certain proposals, and then stick rigidly to them on others with no consistency at all...

 

E.g. the United Utilities scheme (see todays news) should be required to provide ?47,704 towards local health care enhancement (the Council's SPD makes it very simple: ?268 per dwelling). Instead, UU is only providing ?34,000. The same scheme should be required to contribute towards the improvement of local highway network, but it isn't. The same scheme should be providing actual affordable housing on-site, instead it's giving the Council a ?3.95m bung to make this difficult issue go away...

 

The Greenalls application will be no different, in fact it might be worse because we've got a fresh band of monkeys on the DC committe :thumbsdown:

 

[ 12.10.2007, 14:09: Message edited by: McBain ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...