P J Posted March 29, 2013 Report Share Posted March 29, 2013 I object to anyone making rather obscene amounts of profit at the expense of the general public. I'm just weird that way. How is it at my expense Futifino? How are the public being taken advantage of financially by this development? Surely the people of this town stand to gain financially with all the extra council taxes to be paid in. We also stand to gain valuable affordable housing. We don't even lose a scruffy field as we have no access to it anyhow as it is privately owned land. You cannot really object on those grounds Fugtifino it makes you sound so desperate and envious of the developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Should we just go the whole hog and hand over the whole town to developers from other parts of the UK? Do you think parks and fields are an overrated part of the town when they could be earning money for somebody in Cheltenham? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Which park will be lost because of this development? Who is handing over any land for this development? Should only local companies be allowed to develop the Town? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Which park will be lost because of this development? Who is handing over any land for this development? Should only local companies be allowed to develop the Town? Well if they did, they would have to live with any mistakes and poor work they made and not be able to go home somewhere at the other end of the counntry and leave it all behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 31, 2013 Report Share Posted March 31, 2013 Should we just go the whole hog and hand over the whole town to developers from other parts of the UK? I'm not really bothered where they're from, but going the whole hog seems to be what some posters are trying to reason for here. Which park will be lost because of this development? Well, I tried to give you a clue in #191. Hey ho. <tugs forelock> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Fugtifino, if nobody puts the blocks on these builders building anywhere there is space to put a house or two (or a few hundred more) they will just build and build because that's what builder do. Then one day people will wake up, open their eyes, then complain that there are no open spaces to run and jump and walk their dogs and for their darling mini-me's to play safely. Then it will be tough luck...! You chose to sleep while the builders were building - now live with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Cleo.... we need houses. We have immigration, we have natural population growth and we have people living longer..... If we are not going to limit the population because some find that distasteful; then the only way is to build and to cater for the increase in population.... Now Fugtifino seems to think this is some kind of conspiracy by the big bad builders to join Winwick up with Orford and thus reducing his house prices, but unfortunately we need these builders not only for houses but also to provide jobs for the growing population too..... catch 22?? Fugtifino, Fugtificare..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Build up instead of out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Fugtifino, if nobody puts the blocks on these builders building anywhere there is space to put a house or two (or a few hundred more) they will just build and build because that's what builder do. Then one day people will wake up, open their eyes, then complain that there are no open spaces to run and jump and walk their dogs and for their darling mini-me's to play safely. Then it will be tough luck...! You chose to sleep while the builders were building - now live with it! If you go walking on the land in question Cleo you could and should be charged with trespass as it is private land, not accessible to the public. If this was a development where the Council were just giving away all the public owned and useable land to be developed then I would understand your point and probably be against the development but this isn't the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 I did use to go walking on that land with my dog and one or two of my boys regularly before it was fenced off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Well I suppose there is no accounting for blatant law breaking and trespass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Seems there may be a more urgent problem for the residents and landowner. I just saw 50 or so traveller caravans entering the land at the top end near the NHS place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Well I suppose there is no accounting for blatant law breaking and trespass When there are no fences sorrounding and no signs saying private land keep out it just isn't blatant trespass and in fact cannot be called resspas at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 Seems there may be a more urgent problem for the residents and landowner. I just saw 50 or so traveller caravans entering the land at the top end near the NHS place Good for the travellers. If it wan't n April Fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Once objectors start grasping at straws like QEII designation, you know they've lost it ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 When there are no fences sorrounding and no signs saying private land keep out it just isn't blatant trespass and in fact cannot be called resspas at all. If you go on to private land without permission * or remain on that land when told to leave - it's trespass. ( * There are, of course, occasions where there is implied permission - for example walking up a front path to post a letter through a letter box.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 When there are no fences and gates, when there are no signs saying private land, keep out, when there are several well trodden footpaths leading in different directions, If there is no owner or owner's agent there to tell people to get off because it is private land then I'm damned sure it's safe to assume it is common land, albeit once upon a time farmland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 The law of common trespass is not worth the paper it is written on unless it's MOD property, then they will punish you!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 The law of common trespass is not worth the paper it is written on unless it's MOD property, then they will punish you!. Mods can turn vicious when crossed - as can rockers ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Cleverly worded Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 No doubt WBC Planners will now be busy, totting up the available land supply figures and projected housing need figures, to demonstrate that Peel Hall isn't yet required for release - but at some point in the future it will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Well, I hope they’ve done the totting up already, but you’re right about the timing aspect, WBC need to convince the inspector that it isn’t needed yet but is considered for the future. Anyway. Baz - Now Fugtifino seems to think this is some kind of conspiracy by the big bad builders to join Winwick up with Orford and thus reducing his house prices Congratulations to Baz on being the first person I’ve heard in all of this to mention house prices. You’ve said yourself Baz that you don’t know the area, so how about taking time to learn a bit instead of continually barking up the wrong tree and making a fool of yourself. The areas most affected by this are Houghton Green, Cinnamon Brow and some parts of Orford that lie East of Poplars Ave. There’s a busy stretch (8 lanes, plus hard shoulders and central reservation) between Peel Hall and Winwick. This prevents any “joining up” with Winwick. Houghton Green may be in the parish of Winwick, but it’s already “joined up” with Orford through being in the ward of Poplars & Hume. Apart from maybe one or two old timers who lived here before the motorway was built, nobody I know around here considers themselves to be a Winwicker. There’s strong opposition to this from Houghton Green, Cinnamon Brow, Poplars & Hume and - it being in their Parish - Winwick Parish Council. So please stop trying to make this into something that you want it to be about, and do a bit of revision on some local geography. PJ - If this was a development where the Council were just giving away all the public owned and useable land to be developed then I would understand your point and probably be against the development but this isn't the case Well, given the paltry sums involved at purchase it wasn’t far off a give away, though I wouldn’t expect that was enough to make you reconsider your stance here. Oh, and you said this in #171: I am not for the development of Peel Hall to be honest... Are you sure? You’ve questioned my motives more than once so let me ask you, why are you here championing this application? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Fugs.... I do know the area. I know the care home and I know that the houses that border the plot of land that face Winwick road were sold at an absolute knock down price 30 years ago....(My foreman bought one) when they couldn't sell them for love nor money I am just amazed that while the council will champion every bit of building across the whole of the borough; that they are bothering to even contest this. As PJ has said; this is a plot of land with houses on 3 sides and a motorway on its fourth side...... it is hardly Tatton park now is it..... surely it is best to make use of the land and generate some jobs and Council Tax income for the town instead of worrying about a few dog walkers and nimbys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Oh... and house prices make up a major major part of any objections these days because an awful lot of people rely on their house for a retirement pot; so please don't try to kid us that no one has given the subject a thought.... and as for making a fool of myself; have you read your posting name lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I am just amazed that while the council will champion every bit of building across the whole of the borough; that they are bothering to even contest this. They're opposing for now it because it doesn't fit with their long term plans for meeting Warrington's housing needs. Oh... and house prices make up a major major part of any objections these days... No they don't, because they're not considered material considerations, and nor are any objections you might like to put down to nimbyism. Which is probably why nobody's bothered to mention them. 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.