Cleopatra Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Since when has WBC Planning Dept. taken any notice of rules and regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 So, we just roll over? Anyone can object, you don't need to have received one of the letters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahl Posted September 17, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Lets hope that Peter Taylor listens for once and rejects the plans. So far he has not listened. Perhaps there is more corruption and collusion within planning department perhaps we do need a review of the past and present members of this department who seem to ignore the public and councillors wishes Perhaps some councillors need to stand up and show some guts to have this rejected.s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Well, if enough noise is made they'll have to listen, wahl. Anyone who is against this proposal should lodge an objection and let their councillor know how they feel. I agree with what Helen Jones is saying about making a lot of noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Oh, and here's a link to the current UDP: http://sys.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/interactiveudp/written/cpt2.asp#hou1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 and here is the link to the latest story http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/14029/1/Homes-plan-offers-once-in-a-life-time-opportunity/Page1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 It was at short notice, but there was a good meeting at The Plough earlier tonight (thanks for accommodating us, Keith!). Excellently lead meeting by MS, and a committed councillor had worked hard to get the numbers there: top work all round folks. I think we were all left with the feeling that we've got something solid to fight with. Some knowledge shared that may have a, er, wider interest, and a very strong showing of opposition to this proposed development. A big thanks to all who attended. Next post is one of the best objection letters ever, and it shows the kind of meticulous commitment that's needed in situations like this. Thank you, M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS AND SEND IT AS YOURS. Have a look, then write your own. It will count for more that way. A Field Mill Lane Houghton Green Warrington WA2 G0 18TH September 2012 Mr Peter Taylor Assistant Director Development and Public Protection Warrington Borough Council New Town House Buttermarket Street Warrington WA1 2NH 2012/20610 - 150 Homes at Mill Lane, Houghton Green We object to the proposed development at Mill Lane. Planning permission should be refused because: The existing Local Plan and the proposed Core Strategy adequately identify sufficient land for future development in Warrington. The Local Plan/Core Strategy will deliver sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspiration of the local community. It is the Government Inspector who should decide if the proposed volumes and sites included in the Core Strategy are sufficient for the future needs of Warrington. The Core Strategy is not reliant on Peel Hall or any other identified Strategic Location being developed during the plan period. The fact that the proposed site is included in the Core Strategy as one of several Strategic Sites for possible future development, if needed, shows the Council’s commitment to establishing the appropriate level and location of future housing in Warrington. The proposal within the Core Strategy for a Site Allocations Development Plan Document, including the paragraph relating to avoiding a piecemeal development at Peel Hall, confirms the Local Plan is designed for the long-term benefit of the local community both now and for future generations. Granting planning permission for development of this Greenfield site would deny the local community the opportunity of determining its preferred choice of housing sites. Planning permission should be refused because of: • Restricted vehicle access through Mill Lane • Restricted pedestrian access through Mill Lane • Restricted emergency access via Radley Lane • Unacceptable increase in traffic volumes • Not compliant with Local Authority Plans for Greenfield • Not compliant with current Local Plan & New Core Strategy • Piecemeal development not consistent with New Core Strategy • Not compliant with the NPPF • Not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act • Not compliant with the Localism Act • Not compliant with World Health Organisation noise levels • Attenuation pond – too close to residential property • Allotments - located in air quality buffer zone • £1 million upgrade of Local Authority owned land is not sufficient reason for development • Site plans/ house design not consistent with current local properties Inadequate access to the site Planning permission should be refused because: Houghton Green Village has a total of 56 homes; to increase this to 205 homes will quadruple the volume of traffic. Mill Lane is a narrow No Through Road, which was not built or designed for modern day traffic. Some of the housing stock on either side of Mill Lane date from the 19th Century. Mill Lane is unable to sustain the proposed increase in traffic. Mill Lane at its narrowest point is 5.4m (17”9”). Mill Lane pavement narrows to 0.96 meters (3’2”) One third of Mill Lane, a measurement of approx 97 meters leading directly from the proposed development has NO pavement. It would therefore require pedestrians from the proposed development to cross Mill Lane to access a pavement. Radley Lane/Peel Cottage Lane Planning permission should be refused because: The planning application shows pedestrian/cycle/emergency vehicle access at the junction of Radley Lane and Peel Cottage Lane. This section of Radley Lane is a single carriageway with no pavements and restricted access and no turning facilities. The planning application shows pedestrian/cycle access opposite Peel Cottage, this is a single vehicle carriageway with no street lighting, and no pavement. The planning application shows pedestrian/cycle access on Peel Cottage Lane, which is a single vehicle carriageway with 2 passing points with no street lighting, no pavement and a shingle road, no highway drainage, owned but never maintained by the developer. National Planning Policy Framework Planning permission should be refused because: Plans and decisions should take account of whether: • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people This is not possible using Mill Lane as access to the site. Planning permission should be refused because: Developments should be located and designed where practical to • Give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements • Create safe and secure layouts, which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians. • Consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport This is not possible using Mill Lane as access to the site. Planning permission should be refused because: • Proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date Local Plan should be refused. The proposed development conflicts with the Local Plan. Planning permission should be refused because: • Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. The proposed plans do not include any protection or enhancement of the public right of way. Disability Discrimination Act Planning permission should be refused because: The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) places a requirement on the local Authority to ensure decent access. This includes public footpaths / pavements. The British Government has also set a recommended minimum width, to be enforced by local authorities. Where possible, the footway width should be sufficient to allow two wheelchairs or double buggies to pass. Mill Lane is not wide enough to comply with this. Where pavements do exist on Mill Lane it is impossible to widen them. The location of the proposed development would therefore discriminate against wheelchair users, as they would be unable to access the proposed site. Transport Assessment Planning permission should be refused because: 1. The pavement opposite the site entrance narrows to 0.96 meters (3’2”) not 1.8 meters (5’10”). 2. The centre of Warrington is 6.43 km (4 miles) not 3.5 km (2.17miles) therefore it is a 20-minute cycle ride to the centre of Warrington not 11 minutes. 3. There is no pedestrian access to the A49 from this site. These errors appear in the TA presented by the developer Sports Playing Fields Planning permission should be refused because: The Mill Lane area has adequate sports pitches/playing fields located at Ballater Drive, these are used regularly by local residents and residents from outside the area. Any refurbishment of Local Authority owned sports pitches in other areas should not be as a consequence of a planning application on Greenfield at Mill Lane. Affordable Homes Planning permission should be refused because: Although there will always be a need for affordable homes, this should not be used as a lever to develop in areas other than those proposed in the current local plan/new Core Strategy. Developers should not compromise the location of affordable homes to accommodate the use of unsuitable land. Services Report Planning permission should be refused because: Foul water and surface water The planning application indicates the proposed development would be connected to the main sewers for foul water and surface water, through either a viable watercourse or through surface water sewers. Attenuation Pond An attenuation pond measuring approx 85 meters x 35 meters is proposed within 5 meters of Peel Hall Farmhouse. If surface water and highway drainage is to be through the existing drains, why is such a large attenuation pond required? No further information is included in relation to the attenuation pond i.e. depth/construction/health & safety. The proximity of the pond to a domestic residence is concerning. In a previous planning application by this developer for the same site the Environment Agency stated that they would prefer that a drainage strategy for the whole site be agreed. This gives further credence to a refusal for any piecemeal development at Peel Hall. The Environment Agency stated in November 1999 “The Agency believes that the drainage of this site requires careful consideration since it lies across the boundary of the Padgate Brook and Dallam Brook catchments. The Agency has been informed by Warrington Borough Council that the pumping station does not have sufficient capacity to accept the additional flow.” Has this changed? Electricity Supply The planning application includes a map of services affected by the development. It includes a map showing electricity running from Peel Cottage to Peel Hall Farmhouse, this is incorrect. There are no electricity cables running between these two properties. Peel Cottage Lane Access The lane between Peel Hall Cottage and Peel Hall Farmhouse identified, as Peel Cottage Lane by the developer is a single-track, shingle road, which is the only access to Peel Hall Farmhouse and Peel Hall Kennels & Cattery. Access should not be obstructed by any development. Noise Planning permission should be refused because: • NPPF: Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution… The proposed plans show a 60-meter noise line from the M62 motorway to the first row of houses. The front gardens to these houses are included within the 60-meter line. The proposed plan intends to use the 4 storey (10.5 meters) homes as a noise barrier for the gardens and properties behind them. A 2-meter fence is proposed to reduce the noise from the M62. The developer suggest that in order to reduce noise levels to a good level, it will be necessary to install ventilation in order that windows do not need to be opened. External Noise Levels The report states that even with the presence of the noise barrier, external noise levels across the site exceed the World Health Organisations external amenity area and garden maximum daytime noise level of 55 dB(A) with typical noise levels at the first line of housing in the region of 66 dB(A). The houses on the western side of the development i.e. those facing Peel Hall Farmhouse are not orientated such that their gardens are facing away from the motorway and as such they do not have the same level of protection as most of the other back gardens; however it is proposed to build a wall or noise barrier to the rear gardens. Without the barrier the noise level in the rear garden would be 66.9 dB(A) with a 3-meter barrier this can be reduce to 57.3 dB(a). This is in excess of the WHO external amenity and garden maximum noise level We would like to request the opportunity to be present at any site visit conducted by the W.B.C. Planning Department. Yours faithfully, Notfug NOTES: ERRORS CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION This Greenfield site is 6.43 km north of Warrington town centre not 3-km as described by the developer Sorry for long post, but it was worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Wow that should keep them busy for a while. A very good objection letter indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 So what do the objectors want to happen to the Peel Hall site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Same as the council's local development plan really, nothing until there is a need for more housing to be built on greenfield sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skittles Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Not read all the posts on here but why are people so opposed to the building on Peel Hall? Much of the land is derelict and unused. Maybe there should be some sort of compromise and some of the land handed over for community use, (maybe to the forest trust) and the rest of it used for housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 It's the last open green space in North Warrington. We don't need the housing. Oh, and everything in post #83. ... some of the land handed over for community use... Hahaha. This is a property developer you're talking about, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 I thought we needed houses to be built? house building = jobs which can't be a bad thing at the moment.... I mean apart from dog walkers, who would actually use the green space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 Maybe we do need houses but they should be planned to meet a need, not built willy nilly. If you want to get into a discussion about this, you should read this first: http://sys.warrington.gov.uk/content_documents/interactiveudp/written/cpt2.asp#hou1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't intend to get into a discussion.... I asked why building houses is not a good thing and who, other than dog walkers would use the green space. Pointing me at a website with god knows how much information is not something I fancy tonight to be honest! I was merely asking for the short version of events because until this thread started I had never even heard of peel hall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 But there's an awful lot of planning applications that have been passed by way of 'exceptional circumstances' and various interpretations of HOU1 already in Warrington!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 25, 2012 Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 I don't intend to get into a discussion.... I asked why building houses is not a good thing and who, other than dog walkers would use the green space. Pointing me at a website with god knows how much information is not something I fancy tonight to be honest! I was merely asking for the short version of events because until this thread started I had never even heard of peel hall I'm not saying building house is a bad thing (though in the current housing slump I'm not sure it's wise for a speculator), but that building houses at this particular time on this particular site is not the right thing to do. Nobody uses the land for anything, it's private and is fenced off. Oh, and post #83 is the short version! Sha - indeed, I was trying to give Baz a short answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skittles Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 I'm not saying building house is a bad thing (though in the current housing slump I'm not sure it's wise for a speculator), but that building houses at this particular time on this particular site is not the right thing to do. Nobody uses the land for anything, it's private and is fenced off. Oh, and post #83 is the short version! Sha - indeed, I was trying to give Baz a short answer. If your accepting that the land will be built on sooner or later what is the point in fighting the development? The trick is to fight it in order to get something out off it I have not been around there for ages, but remember it being fenced off years ago, the fences did not last a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 I don't necessarily accept it, though at some point I may have to live with it. At some point I may get some incurable illness, but that doesn't mean to say I should ask for it now. If it was up to developers, any and every scrap of land around Warrington (and everywhere else) would be developed, somebody has to try to keep control of it. That's why councils have things like development strategies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Bob the builder... Bob the builder... can we build it...? YES WE CAN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 If your accepting that the land will be built on sooner or later what is the point in fighting the development? The trick is to fight it in order to get something out off it I have not been around there for ages, but remember it being fenced off years ago, the fences did not last a week. This site may never have to be built on. There is no need to develop it now and there may never in the future be any real need. There is merely the want by developers to make vast profits. You say "The trick is to fight it in order to get something out off it" I agree, but the 'something' in my mind is probably somewhat different to what you would think. As undeveloped open space it is valuable in itself. Warrington is a highly polluted area, any areas of undeveloped open space with or without access are beneficial to air quality. If there were to be anything done with this site probably woodland planting would be the most beneficial. If this land were ever to be developed I think that there would be far better uses for it than housing development. The population of Warrington has increased immensely without the necessary infrastructure to support the present growth - let alone any more! For example, we have one hospital which is hardly sufficient for the present population of Warrington and are already sharing it with residents from Halton. Yet Liverpool and Manchester have a number of hospitals including centres of excellence. How many sites in Warrington do we have that are actually big enough to build a hospital on? Should we not be ensuring that we at least save some space for essential infrastructure? I could think of a few ways that the Peel Hall site could be not only useful but possibly essential for the future. For the present it is most sensible to leave it undeveloped. I think the offer of a mere £1 million for sports pitches is a joke, and a bit of a sick one at that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 I am so annoyed I could stamp my foot! I just wrote a rather long reply to Sha's observation about Warrington being a highly polluted area. In it I illustrated just how polluted Warrington was in the 40's,50's, 60's and maybe 70's to demonstrate just how clean the air is in Warrington compared to way back then. My damned laptop threw a wobbler and I lost it all. I sure ain't gonna bother typing it all out again. Suffice it to say that you, Sha, must be young and don't really know just how clean the air in Warrington is today, compared with then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Sha.... no money for hospitals unfortunately; the last Labour gopvernment spent it all..... unless you want a situation like we have now in some parts of the country whereby the new pfi hospitals can't afford the repayments on their capital investments (we could of course stop the stup[id situation whereby we give money to countries who are a damned site better off than we are at the moment and giving money to countries harbouring terroists and countries led by governments who are at odds with our way of life) No money for trees and their up keep.... (See above) New houses or business premises are always a good bet for councils as they not only create jobs (providing the councils give the contracts or grant planning permission to local companies)plus they get the additional £1,500.00 or so per year per house from the Poll Tax they generate! Either way, its better than leaving it fenced off and barren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skittles Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 We did have a redundant hospital in Warrington, Winwich Hospital, which was a very impressive building too, that got demolished during the height of the labour era. I am with Baz, if the land was used as a farm, or it was woodland, or loads of people used it, or it was picturesque, but it is not Has anyone heard that there was a Roman Villa or something on the site, if so anyone know anything about it? I sure ain't gonna bother typing it all out again. That is a pity, would be interesting to read! Is it not auto saved as a draft anywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.