Jump to content

Save Sankey Valley Park

Recommended Posts

Is David Earl related to John Earl who used to be the council's Director of Regeneration and Planning?


David Earl might be John Earls' evil nemesis....... John looks after Regeneration and Planning, while David could look after Traffic Jams and Chaos!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



To be fair to culedude, you took this discussion to the personal level by introducing the 'nimby' term......


..... 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. .


I dont believe "suggesting" that nimbyism is taking it personal. I think anyone would admit that there will be an element of this in some peoples objection to the same.


The point I was making that appears to have been missed, is that it is not sufficent to use rhetoric unsupported by evidence when trying to object to any planning never mind one on this scale. In fact I think unfounded objections will go against any objection.


As for traffic, the report includes a traffic assessment and for once anecdotal evidence has been considered. You cannot simply say its wrong without backing it up.


I also use the park and have seen little investment in recent years but some vandalism. Yes the "preferred proposal" takes a chunk of the land directly behind the current park but this is one of many proposals and would be a staged development. Who is to say this will be the proposal in the application or that if it is and it isnt allowed, that one of the other proposals will later come forward. GW have promised consultation. Anyone prepared to hear them out?


I just think a reasoned objection or lets really be open minded and instead of just objecting, proposing alternative plans where the park and theme park and co-exist, would be the best way forward.


If this approach is taken as opposed to generalised reactions (for the avoidance of doubt, this isnt personal or is any offence intended) then i wish them the best of luck. Let the people speak and be heard but lets do it right



Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with GW taking more of SVP (isnt she in sex in the city?). I supported save WG because it had so much to offer for quiet family time, but SVP needs a bit of spruce if you ask me. my only concern would be they may have to RE-RE-REDO (not sure how many REs are required) the acees by road...ie westbrook traffic lights...dare I mention them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. my only concern would be they may have to RE-RE-REDO (not sure how many REs are required) the acees by road...ie westbrook traffic lights...dare I mention them again.


Access is a major bone of contention for the protest as it will involve major road and coach parking construction through the green areas of the park. As for quiet family time, do you not think that the families cheek by jowl with GW deserve to be able to enjoy the Summer without the row and screams from a roller coaster clattering around their back gardens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The green way which has some level of protection has a propsed road & coach park to run at the back of peoples gardens to a joyous camp / caravan site "for now". It's proven that GW do change strategy on a dime and go off on atangent building what ever they fancy. A resident that has to endure a roller coaster that was built without planning permission, I live about 250m away. I feel for my fellow residents who live closer and have great respect for anyone else who carries the ability to use empathy. Alas there are many in the world who lack this skill. The council in this situation performed poorley and far below the expected standard expected by the public, their was no vis-a-vis consultation, despite objections to the planing desk.


So based on at least this one past issue, I can't trust any development going forward in conjunction with GW / WBC. They can simply change strategy in the future, if the business fails and load up the land with more coasters. Note a councillor has mentionted, nothing will impact negatively on our residents. So that's at lease most of GW's proposal out of the window.


As far as some posters on here have said there's effectively nothing of detriment to the woods going or bewsey meadows. I say have a moral chat with your conscience on behalf of the countless birds (inc. herons / owls etc.), bats, squirrels & butterflies that are part of the growing wildlife in the park. Would you like your home turfed up. There is much hidden wildlife using all areas of the proposal, some very unique animals to Warrington, it would be an imeasurable loss for all, bar GW $?$?$.


Consider the safety aspects, perceptions by children out in a small gang, running along in a park and coming to a road in a park, oh a car has just taken little Timmy out. Why because he thought he was in a park.....duh. Dogs have even less sense ditto hedehogs.


Consider the loss of the amenity and the council tax money paid over decades, do the public not deserve a park and land to use, no mystical entity floated down and pointed there finger at the council or government bequeathing them the right to do whatever they want. This is why the community have or should have rights to park land. If we start to loose this then we have to consider democracy and maybe capitalism starting to fail and whether we are truly being governed or dictated to?


The linear park would be lost, the sliver of connection between the two sides of SVP would be the biggest joke in town. It's proven that wildlife performs best for breeding when land is not broken in such a way, consider hedgehog A / sliver of a path / road / Hedgehog B....It just doesn't work.


Ancient parks decimated, oh dear. Once most of england was woodland, here in SVP we're lucky to be able to have a small sample of that woodland on our doorstep. It's great for children to explore such an environment. They can see wild bluebells in the woodland as well as a variety of birds. Owsl can be heard at nights by many residents. Bats fly the park. Herons etc use it.


Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_woodland.


Now one of the unexplored areas by SVP is probably wildlife breeding programs, getting other species or genetic diveristy into the park. Africa seem to be able to manage this, why not WBC. Maybe add some low cost landscaping etc. All perfectly acceptable to the community.


A level of co-existence is already in place with GW, they have their park, it need improvements, some socially acceptable sound proofing required. They make their money, no need for them to become greedy and shaft the residents. They must operate in a socially acceptable manner and NOT impinge on the environment and residents more than they do so at the moment. There is sometimes a line which if you cross it's just not acceptable.


Also consider the future population beyond your life because by my calculation against documented Warrington growth rates, in 500 years we go from 200,000 to 3,000,000 people using a none compound calculation. Consider the next 500 years and we have a 15,000,000 residents. A god dam metropolis. Now use google maps and look at say Tokyo check the parks, yes they've got some. Also some are of pure woodland. Now consider another government / local council cash crunch in say 10 years (usually the cycle) and the remainder of SVP sold off. Get the picture.......the line is drawn. So if your reserved in judgment now, you must consider that future a likely possibility, probability and selloff capability.


SVP is the backbone of the community, it connects us to each other and to retail outlets. There are so many policies and ownerships protecting land that it's ludricous for GW to contemplate submitting a planning application. Something would start to whiff if these policies start to get squashed. The public has already fought the battle for the forests and we're prepared to do the same for the parks. This is only a proposal and if I was a WBC planner specifically focusing on planning aspects, looking at the policies, words I've wrote here, "for lawyers", evidence of wildlife is in the wildlife signs that WBC have errected around the park, public will give verbal testimonies, + photos the public are taking now etc..how could they not protect the park? There would be much outrage.


I have requested WBC notify all residents within 200 meters or greate and publish at least a full page advert in the Warrnigton Guardian, so fundamental is the change. Oh did you know WBC would plough between ?10.5m - ?16m into this, I think my money can be spent better, keeping more worthwhile services running, paying down debt maybe, centrak government has a bit of that ^^.


Read some more if interested here: http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/


Get on board with protecting what the community have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have bats in my back garden and a heron that sits out the front......


... and you have that largely because of your proximity to the big green space that's in danger of some unsympathetic shrinking.


Not sure about that.... I have a big green bit in front of my house and a big green bit at the back..... My mum in Bewsey is as close to SVP as I am and she has never had bats or herons in her garden!

Link to post
Share on other sites



I've lived near the park for over 20 years. Friends who come to visit from well outside the area often go there for a walk.


Just joined in on this topic. Sorry if this sounds a bit serious, trust me, I'm a fun guy really.


I Read the report and looked at the maps. Regardless of any private property issues, if we are not careful, we are going to lose vast swathes of the park.


For the record:-


The new road from the Red Bridge will run down a designated urban greenway, listed as such in the WBC Unitary Development Plan. I suspect this needs a vote in council to change, but I could be wrong.


Twig and Bog Woods by the pond / canal belong to the Woodland Trust and are Semi Ancient Woodland. They are also listed in the UDP. Support the Woodland Trust! They will not want this development.


Ladies Walk Wood (runs from the Maze area up the back of Shackleton Close) is also owned by the Woodland Trust.


The Warrington and Co report does state that 'access will be restricted to protect the investments'.


The Right of Way along Camp Road has already been lost. What else will we lose?


I would suggest that all who are able make full use of the park and woodlands when the weather is fine. Be seen. Talk to other users / dog walkers / cyclists etc. Make sure everyone is aware of what is planned. Listen for the woodpeckers (near the Old Hall), see if you can spot the Herons or the Buzzards. Enjoy the facility and you might just get to keep it.


The time to object has already arrived, even before any planning application is made. This plan is big and ambitious, and is supported by some equally big financial and political egos. Blogging, Facebooking and Petitioning will not make the slightest bit of difference. Individuals need to make their views known, in writing (the old fashioned way, with a pen, on a piece of paper) and send the letter to their local councillor, the mayor and especially the planning department. If this development once gets off the ground, it's flying, and no amount of Flak will bring it down.


OK, I'm getting down off my soapbox now. But I haven't gone away!


Oldhall Resident

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sankey Pimpernel and Local Resident... welcome to the forum and very interesting posts by you both :D


Just briefly I think like other councils Warrington's current UDP is being replaced with LDF's/LDP's but not sure where they are upto with them round here.


As for bats... we have loads round here, the heron flies over daily and the foxes seem to be spotted out and about more often these days too but it's pretty built up around here apart from Walton Gardens, Alexander Park and the ship canal.


No theme park though I'm happy to say :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the "Save Sankey Valley Park" stickers have been plastered everywhere. On road signs and bus stops.... wanton vandalism.... I hope the Police are going to find out where they were printed and prosecute the perpetrators!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a sticker or two between 'friends' Baz :wink: It wouldn't have been necessary to put stickers up though if today's news that it will not be able to go ahead anyway been disclosed earlier by the councillors or 'whoever'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stickers or posters Baz ?? Sometimes posters are the only way of alerting people but obviously they should be taken down when appropriate... I believe the council employs such people for the task when it suits :lol:


If you are not careful, and the police spot you, you get a right telling off... but only if you stick them near pedestrian crossings :oops::wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy now?


Actually no!

because they are still not being fully open, honest and transparent and appear to be attempting to manipulate the public!

I think that if the campaigners are gullible enough to form a LibDem controlled 'Friends Group' then the future of Sankey Valley Park remains in danger of unwanted development.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that the Lib Dems did a good thing to create the SaveSankeyValleyPark FaceBook Group. Much kudos for this. It assisted in bringing together the community to discuss opinions and allow the group to galvanise their objections to the proposal. Something which was significanlty negative to local residents, wildlife and the future population.


One thing that is extemely key to SVP is it will be the only notable public park left in Warrington. A park which will have to cater for 3,000,000 in 1000 years time. I also hear of no other adjoining councils trying to sell off parts of their linear parks....


For now this SVP development may only be on hold, hence why many residents are still on guard. A situation in my opinion that is not acceptable. SVP must formally be declared a park by WBC and they should put it into a trust, life should just not be this way.


Also the posters which have been stuck up are trivial considering the issues involved. Also a good portion of commendable volunteer litter pickers have been involved in the SaveSVP campaign, more than offsetting a handful of informative posters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to point out that the Lib Dems did a good thing to create the SaveSankeyValleyPark FaceBook Group. Much kudos for this. It assisted in bringing together the community to discuss opinions and allow the group to galvanise their objections to the proposal. Something which was significanlty negative to local residents, wildlife and the future population.


That says more about the residents than the Lib-Dems.

IF the residents cared enough, they would have set it up themselves. The Lib-Dems get involved in ideas like that to gain publicity and a photo opportunity.


There are Friends groups all over Warrington Borough set up by residents, so don't be carried away with too much political enthusiasm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Your clearly out of touch on how this campaign took off, I don't blame you for this as your not a direct local resident to the park. The Lib Dems where the first to notify the residents of the GW / WBC SVP Proposal / Strategy via leafleting. They had already set up the FB group before the residents where notified. When I found out there where already 1000+ members. I also suspect that it was used as part of the campaign due to the NWRDA being already wound down, as I've already stated earlier. I have no political ties or any other form of link with any of the parties. I'm just very grateful for this being brought to our attention, for one thing it's not over, only postponed. The community must make our voice heard on what we want for Warrington.


Incidentally, did you object? If not then be ready to help us next time :)


However, I also want to make it clear that the FB group is NOT political, it WAS used by the residents and the residents DO care, that's why we objected mate. Some set up our own blogs to assist people with info, including the savesankeyvalleypark.com website etc.


If you care then donate through that web site, because some of us residents are also paying for a solicitor to help. Educate yourself and read through the whole of this thread, and other resident web sites, which are listed somewhere within the whole thread.


Help Save SVP for the Warrington community before it eventually gets eroded away from commercialisation over the years and stop bickering like old ladies over who did what and give kudos to anyone who helps positively. We must remember recently what happened to Walton Gardens, sold off. In the future the owners could remove rights of access to the public unless you?re a golfer.........Lets not allow the last reasonable public park we have go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Walton Gargens wasn't sold off... the buyers/developers withdrew their proposals at the last minute after all the backlash from the public and support groups and of course certain legal points being raised :wink: So it's still a public park....did you not know it had been 'saved' ?


As for Peter's comments... well from past experiences of the Libs I can certainly see where he is coming from. Here's hoping this time is different eh :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the first I heard about it was when it was apparently sold....I didn't know that the developers backed out of the Walton Gardens buyout......that's FANTASTIC news! Walton Gardens is a superb park and I'm glad to hear it's remained in public hands, especially when some of the team managing the sell off where tentative on whether they'd secured the park for future permanent public use.

Link to post
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...