Jump to content

WBC request building land info ???


Dizzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just to clarify...

 

Walton Locks = 250 units maximum (read the outline permission)

 

As I understand it the Greenalls site has not got permission yet either.

 

The Reserved Matters application for the 'New World' site in Westy is also up for consideration as well (now there's an example of the Council rolling over and playing dead!).

 

Quite a few derelict sites need to be redeveloped, but on their own they are not large enough to support a truly mixed-use development. I think that the Council should focus on assembling a site that is large enough to allow a good mix of uses (commercial, retail, recreation and residential) so that it can function in its own right, rather than have piecemeal development scattered across the borough. Surely specifying a few key locations is better than have a miriad of smaller ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by McBain:

Just to clarify...

 

Walton Locks = 250 units maximum (read the outline permission)

 

As I understand it the Greenalls site has not got permission yet either.

 

Hiya McBain... you are right with the 250 figure sorry. My memory had reverted to the original Walton plans for 400 which of course were refused... however there are the additional proposed houses on the other side of the lock which were approved seperately from the main development a few years ago :D:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by McBain:

The Reserved Matters application for the 'New World' site in Westy is also up for consideration as well (now there's an example of the Council rolling over and playing dead!).

Oops... missed that one completely :roll:

 

Did try to read the design brief but the online version is just over 150mb and 881 pages long.. even broadband was struggling with that so I gave up when it got to page 28 :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peter:

Do we have /can get a figure on the number of apartments built by developers in the last 5 years within the town's inner wards?

I can think of 5 lots of flats/apartments built in Latchford West alone, and that does not include the two named above, yet to be built.

Good thinking... the figures must be available.

 

but why only appartments in inner wards.. why not include all other housing developments in the towns inner and outer wards :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Peter:

Dismayed,

I was thinking of the Inner Wards because of the immediate traffic impact(multiply the number by 2).

I know that a lot have been built at Lymm, but "perhaps" they travel to Altrincham or Manchester.

Apart from Grappenhall Heyes, where were you thinking of?

Sorry Peter I misunderstood you... :wink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dismayed - good to see you are on the ball on this one.

 

Yes, the "New World" one has passed a lot of people by. Interestingly, the approved outline permission was for 450 dwellings. Inexplicably the Council has registered as valid a Reserved Matters application for 486 dwellings - and there was me thinking that the Reserved Matters application had to - by law - comply with the limitations imposed at Outline stage :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Outline decision was issued against advice received from a top QC on highways law and is therefore deeply suspect. The Council knows this and doesn't want anyone drawing attention to it because if it comes out then there'll be ????? to pay to someone. Also, it made a complete hash of the section 106 negotiations and so got pitifully little in comparison to other schemes - particularly with regard to Affordable Housing and contributions to social infrastructure.

 

Oh well, water under the bridge etc...

 

I just wonder whether the people (and Councillors who are all strangely silent) have found their voice yet or are just rolling over and playing dead.

 

If you are interested, the main layout is shown on page 38 of the 881 page document.

 

Again - why the hell the Council didn't realise that a 150MB file was going to be too large for all but the most dedicated net-heads to download is beyond me :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All sounds rather 'iffy' indeed and haven't a clue where to start with my reply :wink:

 

Anyway as we are here.....

 

Having not seen the latest submitted plans/documentation (for reasons already explained) it would be interesting to know how much it does differ from the original submission put forward for 'outline' approval.

 

I am no expert but from my understanding 'outline approval' simply shows that a development is acceptable in principle.

 

Some applications for 'outline approval only' have the advantage that detailed drawings are normally not needed, although I would imagine in a development of this size detailed drawings would have had to be submitted for the previous outline approval... perhaps ?

 

As for the subsequent 'Reserved Matters approval'...

 

Which board actually makes the final decision on reserved matters? :roll:

 

and if this IS the case what an easy way round the planning process eh !!?

 

Regardless, if the plans have changed in any way they are expected, and should, re-apply for either a new ?Outline Planning Permission? status OR for Full planning permission from scratch !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry McBain if forgot to mention

 

the highways issue????

 

Given the location of this development it will have quite an impact on the Latchford Swing Bridge and local small roads in the area? (and also the Cantilever Bridge which is also under discussion in another topic)

 

The Greenall?s development will have the same impact on Stockton Heath Swing Bridge and local small roads less than half a mile to the west of the above one?

 

The Walton Locks development will have the same impact on the Chester Road Swing Bridge and local small roads less than half a mile to the west of the SH one?

 

The road infrastructure in Warrington is already at a point of total gridlock. So let them keep allowing these developments on the north side of the Manchester Ship Canal and sooner or later everything will grind to a complete halt? and we can all stay at home.

 

and re your other comment

'I just wonder whether the people (and Councillors who are all strangely silent) have found their voice yet or are just rolling over and playing dead.
Counillors are ALWAYS strangely silent... :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dismayed - where to begin on this one??

 

Well, the outline consent was accompanied by an illustrative layout and included "full" details of the access - which was approved as part of that outline scheme. (I put "full" in inverted commas because actually the drawings that were submitted were pitiful and far short of a proper engineering submission, e.g. no information about changes in levels etc. was included). Still, don't get me started about how the highway engineers played along with the developer ...

 

Looking at the outline permission it's clear that the Council are being as accommodating as possible. The description of development on the approved outline is as wooly as possible (e.g. approximately 450 dwellings). At the Res Matters stage this now translates to 486 dwellings. I bet Peel were wishing they had applied for "approximately 250 dwellings" and then followed that up with a scheme for 300!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All seems like a rather nice little loophole in the planning process for developers and council's to go through to get their own way :wink:

 

Peels was only approved as 'outline' permission so perhaps they can tweak it a bit when the time comes :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...