Jump to content

Lower Stretton; change of use from depot to residential quarters for "fairground workers"


Nick Tessla
 Share

Recommended Posts

From the other news website

 

 

"COUNCILLORS are set to decide on a planning application for a group of fairground workers who are bidding to set up home in Lower Stretton.

 

The Development Management Committee will meet on Thursday, January 26 to decide on the application, which has been submitted for the land next to Hall Lane, known as the ‘Roots and Shoots’ site.

 

Use of the land will be changed from a landscape contractors depot to residential quarters"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading about that some time ago on here I think.

 

I don't know much about it though as I can't find the planning application on the council's website (searching under Hall Lane ) and there are no documents available on the councils other CMIS website link for the actual Dev Man Committee meeting either. Unless of course for some weird reason I'm just being blocked from finding them which I very much doubt :lol:

 

Sort of a waste of time looking though if they are not easily found even when you have an idea what you are looking for :roll:

 

Long reign the travellers/fair people/and similar then while we all live like mushrooms in the dark :blink:

 

Not to worry eh as at least they seem to like to be sticking to the greener areas of Walton, Grappenhall and Stretton so are somewhat confined.... for now :unsure::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't give up on finding plans on the Council's website Dizzy. At last week's Town Hall Public Inquiry into Planners' shredding of all pre 1996 plans in 2006 it came to light that plans post 1996 may also have been destroyed - that is until Mr John Groves turned up on the last afternoon of the Inquiry to announce to the Inspector/Barrister, apparently with mixed emotions of embarrassment and relief, that 'missing' planning files had been found after being lost during some relocation of planning staff in New Town House - perhaps the staff reorganisation needed better Planning !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't give up on finding plans on the Council's website Dizzy. At last week's Town Hall Public Inquiry into Planners' shredding of all pre 1996 plans in 2006 it came to light that plans post 1996 may also have been destroyed - that is until Mr John Groves turned up on the last afternoon of the Inquiry to announce to the Inspector/Barrister, apparently with mixed emotions of embarrassment and relief, that 'missing' planning files had been found after being lost during some relocation of planning staff in New Town House - perhaps the staff reorganisation needed better Planning !!

 

 

Amazing!! And he was unaware of the furore going on about their destruction? You couldn't make it up. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You beat me too it Peter....

 

Maybe he/they will suddenly find all the pre 1996 records after all too hidden away somewhere or at least some of duplicate copies or microfiches of them <_< Naah... long gone cos Mr G said he witnessed them going. BUGGER !

 

Considering the public outrage, press coverage, internal investigations and concern all round you'd have though that they would have noticed and even owned up to and reported that there was a chance some post 1996 ones had gone too without it having to 'just come to light' in a public inquiry.

 

Good job Mr G or whoever did manage to find them though eh although if I was the inspector I'd be looking into every single one of the ones that 'had' gone missing but were then suddenly found at the 11th hour just out of 'interest' :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the news section of this site

 

"A FAMILY of travelling show people has been refused permission to set up home on a green belt site at Warrington - even though they have already bought the land for £300,000.

Warrington Borough Council's development management committee voted 7-2 to reject the application, involving land to the north of Hall Lane, Stretton."

 

I wonder which two voted in favour. I believe Geoff Settle is a member of that committee - perhaps he could name names when he decides to break his forum silence.

 

 

(Assuming Archie allows him to keep the electorate informed and the elected representatives accountable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt an appeal will follow and rather than fight against the pikeys, the council may well look at how much it would cost to defend the action.

 

I also have no doubt that there will be an army of people all willing to inform the pikeys of their rights and the councils "obligations" to look after their way of life.

 

£300,000 is a lot of cash to pay out for something that will now be worth about £40 if they don't get the planning permission they seek; so a very good incentive to appeal if you ask me!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does frustrate me. :evil:

 

I'm pleased that the councillors have voted to refuse the application but like Baz says there will now inevitably be an appeal (just like there always is with such matters and refusals). Sometimes I am a tad cynical in the belief that 'maybe' the council's dev board just refuse so as not to take the blame when so many people are against it.

 

In this case though I don't really think it is the case of as there were so many objections and including not only over 100 objectors, but also objections from David Mowatt local MP, Cllr Kennedy Borough Councillor, Stretton Parish Council and Stretton Residents' Group. I wonder if any other Borough Councillors also objected but were not names as they bloody wel should have.

 

I remember the Cartridge Lane site in Grappenhall when plans were put in for that by travellers. That was greenbelt too. Many people objected including various council boddies and it too was refused. It went to appeal and as the travellers already owned it and were living then the decision to refuse was overturned and they got their way.

 

Guess the same will happen with this one as like Baz says they do own it and have splashed out £300k to buy it.

 

One things for sure the two families are are obviously far better off financially that most of us if they have that much to throw around with the possibility that it 'could' backfire and be wasted money. Course it won't backfire as they know the ropes.

 

If appeal is refused though I'll buy it off them for £1000 as I think Baz is being a bit stingy with his £40. :lol::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder which two voted in favour. I believe Geoff Settle is a member of that committee - perhaps he could name names when he decides to break his forum silence.

 

(Assuming Archie allows him to keep the electorate informed and the elected representatives accountable)

 

Anyone who attended the decision meeting in a public sense (and who sat in the main room rather that the overspill room) should also be able to tell you exactly who voted for and who voted against and also any other councillor should be able to tell you too.

 

Did anyone off here go then :D:unsure:

 

I'n not sure if the minutes of the meeting show members name and the way they voted or just numbers counted.

 

In my opinion (if they don't) they should record each members name and what they vote at each and every meeting though as it could be relevant and very interesting to chart :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters nought that MP's, Councillors and Uncle Tom Cobley are against these developments Dizzy..... once the 'travellers' scream "Human Rights" and "Discrimination" they will get their way

Edited by Dizzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion (if they don't) they should record each members name and what they vote at each and every meeting though as it could be relevant and very interesting to chart :lol:

 

Yes, then we could see who's cost the Council money by voting down an application that will be allowed on appeal!

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...