Jump to content

Save Sankey Valley Park


Recommended Posts


What was the "York Case"?


Boris, the 'York Case' or 'York Claim' is a relatively recent case which has been of great interest to lawyers and of great concern to councils throughout the country.

In brief;- a community group fighting unwanted development applied for legal aid for a Judicial Review, they were told they would have to pay 50% of the estimated costs themselves up front. As this was impossible, they weren't able to hire lawyers to represent them and sadly lost the case.

However, due to what they regarded as the injustice of the system they decided to take the Legal Services Commission to Judicial Review. On 30th January 2006 Mr Justice Goldring found against the LSC quashing their original 50% decision. He also directed that the LSC reconsider the whole issue of the groups contribution.

The LSC reconsidered and accepted the sum of money the group had managed to raise as their contribution.


The importance of this case is that it has set a precedent and that it should now be easier for community groups such as the Save Sankey Valley Park group to get legal aid whilst any contributions asked for should be in keeping with what it could be reasonably expected the community group could raise.


I have some other information which may help Boris, I will send you a PM shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It appears that the lodges and caravans will be sited on top of the old tip, there are still tales of the mass burning of diseased cattle on that site, never mind what unregulated toxins were dumped there over the years. That would sound great in a brochure. Bewsey is never going to be a holiday resort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused.... as usual :oops:


Borris.... There's a link on your 'save sanky valley park' website to an online petition people can sign (after registering with petitions online) but now someone else (moleogod) has posted a link to another petition for the same purpose which is on WB council's website.... which one are people supposed to sign as people can't sign both surely :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont have a problem with it.


When I moved to Warrington some 15 years ago, I bought an A-z and it had a road down as planned between Ladywood / Gresford anyway. Indeed the red bridge roundabout has the exit lanes built on it but covered over. The complaints about that road being built arent therefore particulary well founded. I suspect the mess of the lights at Westbrook Centre have contributed to the need for this road anway. In fact this road will take away current traffic jams and provide greater cross town access anyway.


The land being taken over is on the far side of the canal largely unused and not even landscaped. The Wood behind the existing theme park is not particulary pretty or valuable. When i visit there, there is usually a scrambler or two causing mayhem.


Provided some element of access is maintained (which appears to be the case) then i cannot justifiably object to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposal for the road from the red bridge isn't a through road, it is only to provide access to Sankey Valley Resort. That said, I'm sure that one day it will be opened as a through road in a future phase.


The road on its own wouldn't meet much resistance, after all it is well documented that there has been a road planned here for many years. The objections to Gulliver's World (Sankey Valley Resort) however are completely different.


Put quite simply. We shouldn't be thinking about building a theme park on green space surrounded by housing estates, especially when that green space is extremely well used by local people for all types of recreation.


People can currently look out of their windows at beautiful greenery. After the implementation of the proposals, the same people will be looking out of their windows at coaches and sniffing diesel fumes while they're at it. These particular people can also expect a 30% reduction in the value of their houses. Not on is it?


Obviously that is just one example of what could happen and it is a legitimate concern.


If we are going to have a theme park here in Warrington then it is simple common sense to build it away from housing estates. Burtonwood old air base and the Omega site are the obvious choices that spring immediately to mind.


Please sign the petitions and help us to stop this urban abomination. If there are more than one petition then sign them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont agree. the road according the plan will be a through road and has been planned since new town creation. In fact it will probably be smaller scale than that originally envisaged. The coaches wont be running their engines all day and therefore that's an exaggeration. Suitable planting has also been planned. Indeed such a road will be quieter than most urban roads by virtue of it being access to the park only (initially)


The plans show two areas of development. Currently the forest owned by GW and the wasteland opposite on the otherside of the canal. I question what activities are they being currenlty used for. Dog walking may be? cycling? Well the park will still be available for all that. The plans dont say otherwise.


As for hosue values, I doubt there will be any loss. Plenty of houses already back onto the GW estate and arent priced any differently than those that arent.


This really sticks of nimbyism. Oh and yes I do live near there and at one stage was bidding for houses in the affected area in the knowledge of the road / park etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any situation where local people get together and protest against plans will always be termed as nimbyism by people living outside the community so the comment is really wasted here.


The concerns are legitimate in terms of the green space currently being used by local people for all types of recreation. I walk the park regularly and talk with a lot of people who do activities such as the ones you mention, dog walking, walking, running, cycling, fishing, bird watching and more. The area is lovely in most places and I do agree that money should be spent on regeneration. However, in the interest of Warrington and the local community, a theme park in the middle of a group of houses is not an improvement.


If you read the report, it states that the area proposed for Gulliver's world control will be limited (out of hours) in other words it will be closed off to the public when Gulliver's World is closed. Gulliver's World opening hours are yet to be decided. So all of the people who currently enjoy their recreation on SVP will be at the mercy of a corporation.


WBC may extend the road if/when they have the money to do so and if/when it becomes a priority. Yes it has been planned for many years, but it still isn't there!


I'd be interested in hearing your views on Gulliver's upping sticks and plonking a theme park where there will be limited or no opposition like the sites I mentioned in my last post right on the motorway network?


The coach park is planned to be less than 50 yards away from houses in Gresford Close. As Gulliver's World opens its gates, coaches will come, they tend to leave their engines running and fumes will be a problem, this can't be denied, it happens at other theme parks and it is an environmental issue in terms of fume and noise pollution.


Therefore it is obviously going to have an impact on house prices, who wants to buy a house close to a coach park?


Yes planting has been planned, although I would hardly call it suitable. Trees which have been hear longer than any of us will be bulldozed to make way for the corporate pocket.


WBC haven't got the money to build this road, the only way it will be built is by allowing Gullivers World to expand and contribute. It would be a cheap road for WBC at the sacrifice of many of it's residents, over 1600 on the Save Sankey Valley Facebook group, nearly all of these people object to the plans!


I would encourage everybody to join the SSVP on Facebook and also visit http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com and sign the petitions under the links section of the website.


Help the locals to save their cherished green space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said I live in the area albeit not backing onto the site. I think therefore the nimbyism argument stands.


The so called green space is only green as its been left vacant as the road has never been built. Its not landscaped and has just been left to vegitate. Its not as if the whole of SVP is being bulldozed. Fishing cannto take place behind GW as there isnt a canal there - its dried up. Fishing is much further down and unaffected by these proposals.


The wood behind GW is currently overgrown and not generally accessible anyway. The land on the opposite side is wasteland and nothing grows there. Accordinlgy the alleged loss of green space will be nominal.


The theme park has been there as long as most of the houses. If you moved there, you knew it was there. Moving it would be a multi million task. Who pays for that? Why cannot a legitimate business expand in a designated area they own which has no other designation i.e. green belt, area of outstanding natural beauty etc. Its just overgrown largely derelict land. Omega is owned by others. Do you propose a CPO? What about compensation? Who pays that to the developers at Omega? WBC?


The ASDA car park is over the road from houses. Dont see those having a problem being sold. Houses are built backing onto the old services at Butts Green. Again sold no problem. Thats now being developed as another business park. All have HGVS with diesel engines attending.


They propose green use of the same, refurbishment of the canal (actually putting water back) and bringing the same back into use.


Access will be preserved to those areas disrupted save it might not be the same access. You will still be able to ride, walk etc from one end of the park to another albeit through a slight diversion at this point.


To say SVP is under threat is a huge exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note from your profile that you are a lawyer so I think it wise that I'm not drawn into bottomless argument and with over 1600 posts to your name on this forum alone I see you are a prolific arguer, perhaps practising your profession or playing devils advocate?


I honestly fail to see any of your points as being good for local people or indeed Warrington as a town. The only gain in the proposals would be to commercial pockets.


As a note to other forum members, there are close to 1700 people who oppose this project and I have seen a small handful who are in favour. So there is in fact an overwhelming majority who don't wish to see this project come into fruition.


Again I would encourage you to join Save Sankey Valley Park on Facebook and sign the petitions on the official website http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com


The more local people behind this the better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure but I seem to recall hearing that the planning permission for the once proposed link road from the Red Bridges through to Dallam has now expired. There are historic and well used public rights of way right through the area. Also a large area of land within the proposals is now designated as a SINC site and has been turned into a nature reserve so I would assume that any planning permission may be difficult to get through even this disgrace of a council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say SVP is under threat is a huge exaggeration.


Our local part of SVP is already past the under threat stage and well into the over developed stage. Try to walk from say Bewsey Old Hall through to Asda and you will have a huge detour as Gullivers World have blocked access all over the place. Not very good neighbours at all are that lot.


They have planning permission for a hotel, Urban Splash have planning permission to turn the towns only ancient monument into flats and to deforest and build a further huge development of flats near to the maze and lawn area and you feel there is no threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont agree. the road according the plan will be a through road and has been planned since new town creation.

Adrian, a lot of things were planned at 'New Town creation', most of what was commercially profitable (and some projects that were not planned but were commercially profitable) were completed.

A lot of what was planned, which was meant to redress the loss to the community of their green land or to provide amenities for the increased population of the 'New Town' were NOT completed.


Bewsey Old Hall for example was to be protected as a Heritage Centre. Plans were drawn up...... then shelved. It was left to decay until a case could be made that the only way to 'save' it would be to turn it into apartments.


Walton Hall was to be restored and turned into a Heritage/Arts centre.......plans were drawn up........then shelved.

As the New Town wouldn't stump up the ?50k to pay for the wood rot to be treated a substantial portion of the original hall was lost.

Recently attempts have been made by WBC (Marks & Co) to offload the Walton Estate to a Hotel Group. (watch out for this to re-emerge after the elections!!!)


There are numerous other examples of where the New Town failed to fulfill the 'promises' made.

In fact the whole 'New Town' concept failed.


Indeed such a road will be quieter than most urban roads by virtue of it being access to the park only (initially)


If past experience is anything to go by it probably won't go any farther than the 'initial' stage. Take Appleton for an example, the roads leading to the housing developments were put in, the road to take the traffic out (to prevent congestion) never materialised!


I question what activities are they being currenlty used for. Dog walking may be? cycling? Well the park will still be available for all that. The plans dont say otherwise.

This really sticks of nimbyism.


Whatever the park is presently used for it is a much needed 'green lung' in a town so polluted that we have one of the highest rates of cardio-vascular and respiratory disease in not just the UK but the world!


Adrian, you say "Well the park will still be available for all that. The plans dont say otherwise."

As a lawyer you will be aware that the un-written word can be as effective as the written word and sometimes even more so. (and in planning matters neither mean very much!)


Lastly Adrian, There are plenty of people using and enjoying this park and circa 17,000 people opposed to the proposed plans, as all of these people couldn't possibly be living with the park on their doorstep their opposition could hardly be described as nimbyism!


From your comments and your scathing attitude Adrian you sound more like a politician than a lawyer. I therefore feel inclined to question your motive.

Are you a member of a particular political party who are backing the Gullivers World proposals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note from your profile that you are a lawyer so I think it wise that I'm not drawn into bottomless argument and with over 1600 posts to your name on this forum alone I see you are a prolific arguer, perhaps practising your profession or playing devils advocate?!


A little petty (as are further suggestions detailed above) and I trust you have read all my posts and can thus make a reasoned argument to support the above? No didnt think so.


Yes i am a lawyer and I am fully aware of the task you are pitting yourself against. Read the report in full. I have. They have assessed and appraised each and every facet of any counter argument you can make. Making exagerated claims i.e. "under threat", "30% loss of house value" which are unsupportable rather than just rhetoric will not assist you in winning.


A bit of advice. Whilst I have no isssue with the plans, if you do intend to oppose them, you need a far more strategic apporach rather than just numbers on facebook. Look at the plans in detail including the alternative options that have not been preferred. Have a counter proposal in place or a precise objection to each and every part of the process. That objection must be reasoned and backed up with evidence and/or considered opinion. GW if they dont get the full plan through will try and get bits through. If the council dont follow due process, then a judicial review will be sought costing the council a small fortune. If the decision was reached incorrectly then it will go back again and keep going back. I trust you'd prefer a decisive outcome as opposed to the next 5 years of uncertainty.


I'll say no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



To be fair to culedude, you took this discussion to the personal level by introducing the 'nimby' term. I have nothing to do with this action group, mainly because I agree with you that everything should be out in the big wide world and not confined to facebook. The action group has done this to an extent, but IMHO any information and discussion on facebook is losing some of its value before it hits the screen.


I live far enough from Gullivers World to be neither a nimby nor likely to be affected by any predicted house price drop as a result of the development. Am fully aware of the gap in the roundabout for the projected new road and its long history. Am aware too of our existing traffic problems and fail to see how boosting the usage of GW will improve flow one jot while the existing bottlenecks on Cromwell Avenue continue in place.


From a regular park user's point of view, the development stinks. You don't appear to like the park in its current form. Plenty of us can see it's an amenity that doesn't need to be managed to within an inch of its life. Nor does that amenity and its current paths need to be handed over mostly for the benefit of a commercial outfit with little regard for the opinion of the existing users.


There is no doubt this project arrived at this point by stealth relative to its importance. WBC has form in carefully posed consultations to as few people as it can get away with.


You could perhaps check the aerial view of the park on google maps, the projected footprint of the development, then zoom out until you see the whole of Warrington. It affects a huge proportion of the woodland and usable green space within the borough, and consequently would be a loss to those of us who appreciate such things.


To lose that and all it means for the sake of some profit to GW brought in by mostly daytrippers who are unlikely to make use of much of the rest of the town is a disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Your point about a strategic approach is well made. I do hope that the prime movers of this SVP campaign are working towards this. Friends of Walton Hall were an organised stakeholder body who could give input to the planning directorate website. So far its not possible to give an opinion there, as individuals don't seem to be able to access it.


Reference ?the road that never was?

I moved to Old Hall in 1982. The first phases of all the Old Hall/ Callands housing were going in. On the glossy brochure (which I consulted 5 mins ago) that went with my property, there was a rough plan of the area. ?The road that never was? is identified as "projected extension of the Northern Expressway/A49" I have read on SVP forum that it was blocked by the then Council (Labour ) as it was "an arrow in to the heart of Orford"!


One of the problems in completing the express way , apart from mortally wounding Orford, is having to cross the Sankey Brook and the main line railway line, a major bridge building exercise. It?s mentioned as a constraint in the SVP regeneration proposal. It was deemed too expensive then and probably the same is likely today. The proposal shows that one of the new roads extends beyond the Green Way across the dried up Sankey Canal and the Sankey Brook linking with Longshaw Street. The only way off Longshaw Street, to gain access to the A49 is via Hawleys Lane or Folly Lane. One route goes under the railway line and the other over it. Both routes are a congested nightmare at certain times of the day. I guess that in phasing the road build the first phase would not cross the canal or the brook but it would service Gullivers World.


As posted earlier on this forum I?ve witnessed the gradual encroachment by developers into the SVP to which local objections by residents or councillors have been to no avail. My sympathies lie with those closest to their increasingly troublesome and expanding neighbour. (savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com)

I would have thought you, Adrian would have been more supported of your near neighbours. Perhaps you see the fact that the new road would move the exodus from GW away from Westbrook as a benefit. That smacks of covert NIMBYism !!





Link to comment
Share on other sites

:oops: To be honest Borris I was only looking and I personally wouldn't sign any petition purely on the basis that it existed and the basis that whatever was happening was in Warrington. I'm not saying I wont sign it... but not at the moment :oops:


But if people sign BOTH petitions then the duplicate signatures and numbers may well be discredited at a later date....petitions are often disected and even wording can make them fall foul of being classed as an objection.


Don't know if it is still the case but a few years ago petitions were only classed as being ONE objection anyway in Warringtons planning meetings


Sorry I do not mean to sound rude at this stage but although I only live about a 5 minute drive from the affected area and pass through it most days (and of course I've been to GW) I don't really know the surrounding housing areas or roads very well and have never been to Sankey Valley Park for certain reasons so I feel unable to comment or draw an opinion either way at at the moment.


I have looked at the link to the glossy brochure that was drawn up in 2009 but as already said that is just a sort of 'vision' and unless I am mistaken no actual planning application has yet been submitted so it's hard to draw a conclusion just based on some companies brochure.


Adrian raises some vary important and valuable points and should it ever get the the stage for real objection... all objections must fall into the 'material consideration' category or they will be ignored.


Still not into facebook though as I tend not to take it seriously as every man and his dog becomes friends of friends 'friends' or supporters of whatever their friends are supporting or against regardless of whether they really agree/disagree or care anyway and I still can't view the Save Sankey pages without logging in :?


Guess I must just be getting old :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{I} am aware too of our existing traffic problems and fail to see how boosting the usage of GW will improve flow one jot while the existing bottlenecks on Cromwell Avenue continue in place.



Just remember that it was the Lib Dum Councillor David Earl who was the champion of the traffic lights...... he and his pathetic party have caused countless delays in Westbrook and have caused traffic to take alternative routes past the School just to avoid their infernal traffic lights....


Remember that when you get to the Polling Station tomorrow....

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.

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.


  • Create New...