WBC request building land info ???

[Dizzy]

Re todays news........

Residents asked to help find building land

 

RESIDENTS are being asked to help Warrington Borough Council find potential building sites.

The council already has a list of available sites, but the appeal to residents is to ensure no plots have been overlooked.

....... Future work will look into the possibility of putting houses on available land and other such developments.....

Do WBC purposely NOT listen to anything the people of Warrington say or are they just plain stupid !!

 

How many times have WBC been criticised for the surge of new housing developments etc etc across the town ?

 

Do they really think that residents will help them by picking up the phone and saying 'Just to let you know there's a spare piece of land at the bottom of my road if you'd like to build a high rise appartment block on it'

 

Unbelievable !!!!!

[Student Geoff]

Steady now then man whose asking has just been awarded an OBE.

[Dizzy]

Well perhaps someone should tell him that OBE doesn't stand for....

 

Ooooh Buildings Everywhere

[mike_b]

There's a large area of land just off Sankey Street,behind some large gold coloured gates.Should i tell them about it?

[Dizzy]

wonder if they've noticed it ...

[McBain]

This kind of thing is routinely done by Council's - Wigan has just completed its "Site Suggestion Exercise". It's all about developing an evidence base that will allow the Council to be robust when granting / refusing applications for further development.

 

In Warrington's case it seems a wee bit premature given the stated level of "over supply" (even though that position will have to change given the clarification provided by Government on how RSS figures are to be interpreted).

 

Still, the emphasis in PPS3 is on 'deliverability' of sites. It is no good recommending someing that will require 4 years worth of decontamination for development, the sites should be ready and available for development straight away. This raises an interesting point relating to support infrastructure - how can sites be ready to go if UU cannot provide a suitable potable water supply, or if the sewage network can't cope with the increase in demand, or if the school's won't handle the increase in rolls that would result?

 

Perhaps Cllr Barr OBE (Ornery Blithering Eejit) should be asking residents to identify those aspects of social infrastructure that are in need of further investment to allow it to cope with existing levels of residential development, and then suggest areas which could bear further development in 15 years time?

 

I would have thought that a logical constraint on this exercise should be that only those areas contained by the main motorways (M62, M6, M56) should be considered. There seems little point suggesting that Winwick, Burtonwood, Croft etc. be expanded - there just isn't the connectivity or infrastructure there.

[observer]

Errm, several years back, the Council went through an exercise TO SAVE PLOTS OF LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT, thus retaining some areas of open space/community gardens in the inner areas.

[Paul Kennedy]

There's a nice plot in front of the Town Hall. In fact there is the whole site........if WBC moves to Omega etc.

[observer]

Errm - side of the Town Hall - in Leigh St!

[Peter T]

In my naive way, I would expect Cllrs to know this information, gleaned from patrolling their ward.

[observer]

Some did; even drew their own maps/plans to protect open space in their wards - alas all this info seems to be gathering dust in the planning dept.

[Pete Owens]

Originally posted by Dismayed:

How many times have WBC been criticised for the surge of new housing developments etc etc across the town ?

 

Only if you can describe the lowest rate of house building in living memory as a "surge".

 

The UDP was ammended to remove vast areas of open land that had been desiginated as "areas of search" from the threat of development. This was done partly by arguing for a very low rate of housing development and also by identifying brown-field sites for redevelopment. If we want to continue to protect the coutryside surrounding the town then we need a supply of sites within the town.

 

Unlike building on greenfields, redeveloping derelict sites will usually enhance the locality.

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by observer:

Some did; even drew their own maps/plans to protect open space in their wards - alas all this info seems to be gathering dust in the planning dept.

Seems to be a lot of past information gathering dust/lost somewhere and never being utilised.

 

There's a couple of jobs currently available in the Planning Dept.... I might apply for one as the money is pretty good and they both seem well within my expert capabilities and knowledge of the planning process. If I'm successfull I'll have a mooch about in the dungeons and dusty piles and see what hiding....

 

Anyone else interested in applying here's what they are:

 

SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ENV/048/07

 

Salary: ?23749 - ?30598 (subject to job evaluation)

 

Summary

Due to internal promotion, we now need an experienced planner to handle some of the more complex and controversial applications

With regard to the new position are developers not coughing up their 106 pennies

[Egbert]

All you council bashers are ignoring a couple of things. Firstly, the Government is requiring the council to identity vacant sites and the council is merely seeking a little help from residents. Would you rather not be asked at all?

 

Secondly, although housing is mentioned, the search is for development land of any kind.

 

Seeing as Warrington's supply of housing land is already more than adequate, we can surely rest assured that any sites identified as suitable only for housing will remain undeveloped for some considerable time.

 

Unless of course, it is "affordable" housing, in which case an exception may be made!

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Originally posted by Dismayed:

How many times have WBC been criticised for the surge of new housing developments etc etc across the town ?

 

Only if you can describe the lowest rate of house building in living memory as a "surge".

Eh

[Victor]

I appreciate that the Council is acting on Governmant directives in repect of available brown field sites but how Bob Barr has the audacity to ask the public to help is beyond belief. What will it take to make him realise that the public is totally fed up with the over-development in our town? I think that he must have been on the "DON'T LISTEN TO THE PEASANTS" course! How long will it be before the town becomes grid locked due to the building over-development and the infrastruture under-development?

[observer]

...thought it was already "grid-locked"?!

[Peter T]

Nah,

they've not built on Naylors or Greenalls yet, and they still have all the Howley ones to build.

[Pete Owens]

Originally posted by Dismayed:

There are new houses/appartments going up absolutely everyhere... and a lot more are already approved and waiting to be started started... and others such as the large Greenalls development have now been formally submitted are currenly going through the planning process...

Indeed, mostly small scale developments that are a great improvement on previously derelict sites.

 

New builds are running at a rate of a few hundred a year, rather than the thousands per year we have seen over the past few decades.

Does your dictionary define the word "surge" to mean "at a drastically reduced rate"?

 

In the past the town has sprawled outwards consuming ever more open countryside while leaving the centre to rot. The plans of only a few years ago would have continued this process. Am I the only one here who thinks it is better that for derelict sites to be redeveloped rather than open spaces to be built over?

 

Unfortunately, although the town cut back on the rate of residential building, it is still gung ho with respect to commercial development - pushing for the largest business park in the NW(against all central and regional government priorities). This will inevitably mean that a lot more new housing will be needed over the next decades to accommodate the anticipated workforce at Omega.

[observer]

So PO, how do you square your promotion of more building congestion in the inner areas of the Town, with the consequential increase in traffic congestion?

[Paul Kennedy]

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Am I the only one here who thinks it is better that for derelict sites to be redeveloped rather than open spaces to be built over?

 

No. But more varied types of development to the monolith apartment blocks would have been more preferable. Personally I'd quite to live in or very near a town cente as I could walk to the shops, station etc.

[Paul Kennedy]

Originally posted by observer:

So PO, how do you square your promotion of more building congestion in the inner areas of the Town, with the consequential increase in traffic congestion?

An effective ring road perhaps.

[Peter T]

Originally posted by Paul Kennedy:

Originally posted by observer:

So PO, how do you square your promotion of more building congestion in the inner areas of the Town, with the consequential increase in traffic congestion?

An effective ring road perhaps.

Don't be silly, you can't suggest things that would work.

You are supposed to come up with ways of creating congestion, not easing it.

The Chester one does, and other major towns and cities have them.

I thought that I had seen a lot of redevelopment in Warrington. I guess I must have been dreaming.

[Legion]

oh yes, we'll tell the council about un-adopted land, that we could claim for ourselves for free...were that stupid.

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by Pete Owens:

Indeed, mostly small scale developments that are a great improvement on previously derelict sites...

Not that small scale... to name two approved examples that are to be built: Walton Locks 400 new homes, Greenalls Development 290-340 new homes... these 2 developments are within 1 mile of each other

 

New builds are running at a rate of a few hundred a year, rather than the thousands per year we have seen over the past few decades.

Few hundred?? the above examples alone add to 700 ish.. and that doesn't include all the other housing developments that have gone up or are pending