Save Sankey Valley Park

[Bazj]

the residents DO care

 

some do, some can't be bothered either way.

[P J]

Pimpernel, you do understand that this whole plan was formulated, devised and birthed by the Lib Dem Council of the time. You appear to have been sucked in by their propaganda or are indeed a Lib Dem yourself.

 

You aren't helping.

[Peter T]

I'll have a pint of what he's on. Such blind enthusiasm. And the moon is made of Lib-Dem cheese.

[SankeyPimpernel]

I did not know it was birthed by the Lib Dems. As mentioned previously I'm not affiliated with any political party. My allegiance is with the residents. As far as I'm aware most are networking via the FB site. The Lib Dems have full awareness of the residents thoughts, so if they did indeed championed the proposal then they can get stuffed. However it is the residents administering the FB site, NOT the Lib Dems.

 

Also, can I just confirm with a previous poster (if he reads this), Walton Gardens was going to be made into a Hotel, this was canned. Then it was supposedly sold several weeks ago to be made into a golf club and retain the park. Was this second sell off canceled or where you getting confused with the Hotel phase being canceled? Just need to be sure.

 

Please Donate on savesankeyvalleypark.com to assist in our solicitor fees for protecting SVP for the future, as this is not over.[/b]

[Dizzy]

Also, can I just confirm with a previous poster (if he reads this), Walton Gardens was going to be made into a Hotel, this was canned. Then it was supposedly sold several weeks ago to be made into a golf club and retain the park. Was this second sell off canceled or where you getting confused with the Hotel phase being canceled? Just need to be sure.

 

Sankeypimpernel... do you really live in Sankey as I can't beleive you don't know about Walton Gardens though.. it was never sold... there were months of wranglings and press coverage especially replating to the work of the 'Save Walton Gardens' group and 'Friends of Walton Gardens etc etc. When it was 'saved' mainly due to the shock anouncement at the decision meeting that developers had suddenly pulled out (probably because they and the council realised they had drifted up the muddy creek without a paddle ) it was splashed all over the local news pages, on local radio, on the Save Walton Gardens website, on Facebook and even on the council's website. Since then there have been numerous reports in the local papers and on here about the Advisory Groups and plans for taking things forward while still retaining council/public ownership and interest.

 

So in brief....

 

The actual Hall, part of the grounds and other buildings were going to be leased (basically sold) to a private developer and yes the Hall was going to be turned into a Hotel along with other developments of the other buildings etc and of course restriced access were going to take place too.

 

At the final meeting (where some very good arguements against were put forward by various groups and others) it was announced that the Developers had that very afternoon pulled out of negotiations and plans.

 

Walton Gardens is not being made into a golf club although changes to the existing golf club are in the pipelines.

 

As far as I am aware I am not confused... unless you know about some secret dealing that have been going on behind closed doors recently

 

..... or are you just trying to get people up in arms about Walton Hall and Gardens again to help your cause

[SankeyPimpernel]

Ilive in Warrington and read in the Warrington Guardian paper in the first long bank holiday we had this year that it was sold for effectively golfing development, that's why I asked the question again. I have no secret knowledge and commend the Save Walton Gardens group for all the efforts they've made.

 

I give all my best wishes to anyone anywhere in the country saving parks and forests. I am 110% against these type of sell offs as I believe the public & wildlife have a right to this based on fundamental laws of existence on a planet. I could ramble on all day about this......

 

I'm not trying to cause any issues.

 

I don't tend to read the local or national papers often, maybe once every 6 months unless something specific is brought to my attention.

 

..... or are you just trying to get people up in arms about Walton Hall and Gardens again to help your cause

 

A BIG fat NO to this...how this would help my cause in saving SVP I don't know.

 

Incidentally I was at Walton Gardens a couple of weeks ago as I'd not been their for some time, i specificaly went to see the place before, what I was expecting, was future up and coming changes. I wanted to the the place before these changes occured.

 

I'm not understanding why everyone seems to be be attacking each other on this forum. If I've still got the newspaper somewhere I'll try to post up on a blog what was in the paper.

 

See my thoughts about sell offs here:

http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/

[AdrianR]

One small point. GW own part of the land they intended to develop. So not all of it was a sell off.

 

BTW this will come back at some stage.

[Dizzy]

Hiya SP.... I hope you didn't think I was attacking you with my comments I wasn't. Think the dreaded words Lib and Dem may have had something to do with the reactions due to many people's past experiences with local issues, hopes and findings I shall say no more.

 

Me, well I just found it odd that you didn't seem to know a lot about Walton considering all the press coverage and where you live.... so appologies and what can I say as I've only ever been to Sankey Valley Park once myself and that was many years ago (to where the kids bmx jumps were). I pass it most days too but have still never been back since

 

Anyway is this the story you mean? It mentions the golf club and academy etc but no mention of it being sold. There could be more mention of it in the advisory groups documents and suggestios/plans that were submitted to the council's exec board recently but I'm not reading through that lot just for a golf course

 

I do know that Walton Golf Club actually operates independently from the course itself but I don't play golf so maybe the golfers on here will enlighten us both.... (or hopefully not Zzzzzz )

 

Anyway back to Sankey Valley Park and the residents battle to protect it........

[Dizzy]

Adrain... sorry your post wasn't there when I started typing.

 

Any idea which other area's of land Gullivers actually own around there. Have they allowed free access/public use of these extra areas for the past years?

 

One could say 'that's been rather nice of them' as they could have fenced them all in when they bought them

[culedude]

like i've said before, just because someone owns the land doesn't give them automatic rights to build what they want on it!

 

The proposals have been shelved but will resurect in the not too distant future.

 

There are pro active plans by the action group to protect this land from commercial development but they need donations to fund the legal fees.

 

Donate on their website if you support them, like I and many others have done, they still have some way to go so please dig deep:

 

http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com

[Dizzy]

Can I politely ask... at this stage, when you say you are in talks with legal advisors WHY do you need to raise ?1800 in donations to fund the legal advice? It seems a very heafty amount.

 

You can get the majority of advice you are currently looking for for free. Have you also tried Planning Aid, they will give you advice but as you have nothing specific to object to at this point obviously there is no case to answer so they would not allocate you a caseworker... but they will still advise you for FREE. Only takes a phone call.

 

Or you could get help of somerone like a Town Planner or someone conversant with planning law and all the regulations blah blah blah......

 

Seems a bit premature to start fundraising when you don't actually know what, if anything, is going to happen... what will you do with all the money you raise if it turns out you don't need it

[AdrianR]

They'll have to give it back. If this is eventually made into a planning app and then appealed, ?1800 will be small fry. Add a zero.

 

As far as I am aware the wooded area behind the current site is theirs. My last visit (spring), it was well overgrown and not accessible. The Warrington & Co document has full details in if my memory serves me right.

 

I appreacite you cannot build what you want, but an extension onto land they own is more likley to suceed than one whereby they have to obatin the land especially if its in keeping with their current land use.

[Dizzy]

.....providing of course they are not contravening any planning regulations /laws.

 

A barrister can cost over ?2k for one initial consulatation and like you say Adrian if you want them to act for you (depending on the % they give your case for succeeding) then not only add another 0 but double too in some cases.

 

Like I already said though at this stage and even during the planning application stage most of what is needed can be obtained for free !

[SankeyPimpernel]

---

Dizzy:

Anyway is this the story you mean? It mentions the golf club and academy etc but no mention of it being sold. There could be more mention of it in the advisory groups documents and suggestios/plans that were submitted to the council's exec board recently but I'm not reading through that lot just for a golf course

---

 

Yes to that, commercial hub, bar and learning...I'm not sure what the full implications are but councillors hope the park will remain...time will tell. Hopefully the Save Walton Gardens Group are up to speed on the full implications.

 

--

Gullivers land own part of the ancient woods, even though they own it there would be oposition from me if they want to hack it down, only 10% of england is woods when most of it 90% used to be. Whatever is left must be retained, we should be grateful we have some of this in a Warrington park. Basically this land should not of been sold to them. The woods are a great environment for wildlife.

 

Also my belief is SSVP solicitor is not being used for advice but to put, what I assume is protection in place, this would never be free. From what I've gathered the cost is a fixed quote from the solicitor to do the job in hand. Note: The SSVP strategy is being redeveloped, a new proposal could be submitted any time after that. Planning windows can be quite small (14 days). So time isn't really a luxury to let it pass by. Hence the imputus now. I have donated and don't care if GW never make another proposal, I prefer peace of mind, at the end of the day my donation is small on the scheme of things. If anything WBC should be chipping in with cash,"Big Society" has spoken, we're supposed to be in charge of what happens now aren't we? Or is this another thinly veiled slogan to make us think we live in a democracy....let us see how this unfolds. There's already been a failure on Big Society in some rural village, which is now having low radiation waste dumped in a nearby landfill. Strike 1.

 

From the GW perspective, is it socially acceptable to have a fairground resort expanding in such an area. I look at Alton Towers, Orlando etc. they have swathes of land between their developments & residents. Here they're 50m-75m from residents back gardens, as a planner would you have ever planned a permanent fairground park in such a location. In addition the park was originally a Chilrens Adventure Playgroud (we can accept that, I guess the origianl planners did), so this type of expansion was never originally in the scope. GW's biggest ride was initially built without planning permission!

 

The recent proposed expansion was just Pure Greed. It disgusts me that someone whould take parkland from the public for any venture, I have know respect for idiots like this. For everyone involved in this, they just got carried away working out how they could use some free money from central government. Is this the best they could come up with to use ?15m of tax payers money. Surely we could of come up with a ?15m development for the Omega Site to create jobs with skills with opportunities to create careers.

 

Oh and SVP will need to cater for at least 6,000,000 in 1000 years time, a 30 fold population increase. That means our houses will potentially be 25-35 floor mini skyscraper buildings. Planners need to plan for that eventuality and retain the park facilities, we don't have much as it is.

[Peter T]

---

 

Oh and SVP will need to cater for at least 6,000,000 in 1000 years time, a 30 fold population increase. That means our houses will potentially be 25-35 floor mini skyscraper buildings. Planners need to plan for that eventuality and retain the park facilities, we don't have much as it is.

 

Now you are being silly. I doubt that the planet will exist as we know it in 1000 years time.

Just what are you going to feed these 6 million people on?

[Dizzy]

The Save Walton Gardens Group sort of disappeard from the public eye once the developers withdrew and the chosen advisory group was set up. It was a long time until any info was updated on their website or given as to what was happening and for all intents and purposes they appear to have disbanded A shame really as they were seen to be the public eye, contact point and voice so we don't seem to have an independent one now.

 

Anyway.....

 

So your solicitor is charging to put protection on the ancient woodland ?? What sort of protection and is it not something you can apply for yourself with relevant help and information (for free) ?

 

If the land is owned by Gullivers I guess your solicitor will have to inform them of your application for protection and they in turn can counter oppose it. That will bump your costs up. Who has most money or determination ... you or Gullivers

 

Woodland etc does already have protection to some extent.. before jumping in all guns blazing have you contacted the Woodland Trust and others etc? I believe the fact that they owned some of the woodland round there sort of damaged the plans for the Bewsey Hall housing development and even if they don't own your piece of ancient woodland they may be keen to protect it or advise you for free.

 

Where is SHA when you need them and suprisingly quiet on this topic ... right up his/her street is this one

 

Good luck SP and I hope it all works out for you all in the end.

 

Unlike the Walton Garden's matter though in this case many people who don't live in the immediate area of Sankey/Westbrook? will simply say ... "I don't use it, there's not much there, it wont really affect me, so I wont bother to worry about it."

 

Harsh but true I'm afraid

[Bazj]

---

 

The recent proposed expansion was just Pure Greed.

 

No doubt GW would say different.... they own the land, they are a business and business needs to make a profit; especially in times like these.

 

They will see it as an investment to attract more customers to pay the ever increasing bills that business face. Increases in rates, services as well as NI and other costs all make standing still not an option.

 

Fact of life I'm afraid

[P J]

No doubt GW would say different.... they own the land, option.

 

Fact of life I'm afraid

 

No, they own a small proportion of the land and have no planning permission to build on it. It is woodland not some industrial park or building site. People, local people, use this area every day, myself included.

[Bazj]

To be honest PJ, I haven't really had much interste in it. I have lived in Westbrook for over 14 years now and have been to GW about 3 times. Only when I was a kid living in Bewsey did we go down the woods......... I am far to old and fat for all that stuff now I'm afraid and I would struggle to find a tree strong enough to carry me on the end of a rope swing!!

 

If there is no permission then it can't go ahead. If there is no application there is no plan. If it is protected woodland it shouldn't be built on..... but this is Warrington and you all know the reputation our town has for preserving its heritage!

[Dizzy]

Different administration now Baz and even those who were the old lot just refused the demolition of the Garnetts Tower so maybe a new borne interest is emerging.

 

Not to mention the possible inquiry into the past workings and dealings of the planning department. They will be dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't' from now on I recon... they daren't slip up as they will get slated

 

I wonder if it's too late to mention or re-open the questions about how they ALLEGIDELY (to cover my back) managed to get the funding for.... and the way that they managed to resubmit a refused plan for ........ and they way they also ..... ok I'd best not on here.

 

Karma

[SankeyPimpernel]

***

Peter T (Taylor?)

Now you are being silly. I doubt that the planet will exist as we know it in 1000 years time.

Just what are you going to feed these 6 million people on?

***

 

Look at Africa....you can't stop people breeding unless you wanna be a communist state...population density = Japan (Tokyo). Current growth in Warrington (which incidentally has dropped) = 3%. My calculation is a none compounded calculation over all those years, hence very conservative. There is significant land per head in the world, it would supirse you. Yes a thousand years is a long time. more advancement (moores law to agriculture can apply) GM crops will happen. Ever seen the sleeper (woody allen), funny film, giant sized bananas etc...It's likely there will be a migration from the equator if Global Warming continues. From memory UK is set to become tropical, I can see those giant bananas now But seriously the population growth / migration would still give the same result.

 

Look at:

http://www.population-growth-migration.info/

 

CTRL F, type: warming.

 

Not silly, just facts.

 

--

 

Dizzy, I'm not part of the group organising the solicitor, I don't know the coverage of the protection, therefore not sure whether woodland is included. I did ask about WBC <> consultation ref what they're doing to SVP and can it be done without, they're fully aware of that scenrio and advise that to avoid a counter they can do this without...It probably can be done for free, same as transferring a house deed, but like anything it's time somebody would have to have. Your always advised never to write your own will so I guess the same applies here. I've just advised them to contact the woodland trust, (they have alerted them before over what was happening to SVP)....good tip, thanks!

 

I agree, people who don't use it or live further away will probably not care or not know about the issue. If I'd of known about WaltonG, I would have objected, so there maybe a few out there like me.

 

--

BazJ

 

They have demonstrated difference, but it is greed. I don't have access to their accounts and care not to look them up, but the park is busy enough to cover increases in taxes. They can up their prices to reflect overheads etc. If indeed they where struggling, expanding is not a solution as this gives a larger business, with more overheads "bank costs on loans" & staff etc. Effectively you end up with a bigger business with bigger problems, (just like the dry bulk shippers have today). Therefore my thoughts are they're making more than enough money if they have the ability to expand, they where to spend circa ?15m themselves. They either have cash in hand or good accounts or both to reflect the magnitude of potential borrowing from a bank. It's therefore, in my book, defined as greed if they have the ability to borrow so much, or have the cash or combination. Therefore they must have more than enough money to have a better lifestyle than most. They should be happy with that, not take a good portion of park from the public. Assuming they got what they wanted, lets call this Phase 2 for them, 10 years goes by, Phase 3 they can buy the rest of SVP...At what point would you call it greed?

 

--

http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com/

http://savesankeyvalleypark.blogspot.com/

[culedude]

The action group have reached a dead end in terms of legal advice. The ?1800 is two consultations at ?750 + VAT each.

 

The group are being pro-active in taking measures to protect the park from commercial development in the future. It is insignificant at this stage whether there are any planning applications are in or not.

 

We know how stealthy commercial developers and Town planning departments can be and when a planning application is submitted, residents have 14 days to act.

 

The action group are acting in advance, the ?1800 will be spent on legal action (not might be spent). The figure hasn't just been plucked out of the air, it's a quote from the legal team.

 

If any monies are raised over and above ?1800, then as it explains on the website this will go to a local good cause, possibly even into the park itself.

 

The action team are deliberately being a little vague in terms of what action they are taking, simply because they don't want Gulliver's World or Warrington Borough Council to counteract those plans. The group fully understand that people who donate are taking a small leap of faith, they aren't asking for much really but it is enough to protect the park for future generations.

[Eagle]

 

The action group are acting in advance, the ?1800 will be spent on legal action (not might be spent). The figure hasn't just been plucked out of the air, it's a quote from the legal team.

 

 

How much were you charged for the quote?

[Dizzy]

The action group have reached a dead end in terms of legal advice. The ?1800 is two consultations at ?750 + VAT each.

 

It seems very soon for you to have already reached a dead end in terms of legal advice Is that because there is no actual submitted plan to discuss or object to at the moment other than a 'proposed idea' that has been drawn up by Gullivers or for other reasons ?

 

Will these two costly consultations happen before any real plans are submitted as 1.. they are very costly indeed and 2 if they happen before any proposal is submitted you could finish up having to have more legal consultations further down the line at the submission/planning stage.

 

So how much time are you allocated for your ?750 + vat ? I knew I should have trained to be a solicitor

[culedude]

Not all is as it seems, we have chosen a direction which doesn't need proposals or submitted plans. The objective is to protect the park which is what we are doing.

 

I'm sorry to continue being vague but I obviously can't go into too much detail because I don't want "the other side" to know what we are doing.

 

They (GW & WBC) were very quiet and stealth like when developing the shelved proposals, we are simply following their example.

 

I don't expect everyone will donate to the cause after all it is a bit of a blind leap of faith given that contributors don't know exactly where the money is being spent, but we are committed and promise full disclosure when we have reached our goal which is simply "Protect our park from commercial development"

 

Like everything legal, there is always a chance that we will fail at this hurdle, but we will give it our best shot, after all who else is going to help to protect it? Your local council is appears as close to GW as Thatcher appeared to be with Reagan. If we don't succeed now we'll pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and try again. We will do this, hopefully with your support. It will be a lot harder without it.