LIBERAL Democrats at Warrington have repeated their opposition to plans to build houses at Peel Hall.
This follows the news, earlier this month, of plans by developers Satnam to build 150 houses and sports facilities.
Lib Dem planning spokesperson Cllr Bob Barr (pictured) said: “We have consistently opposed plans to build on this site.
“We agree that improved football pitches would benefit the community but not on this site at a cost of giving in to housing development which is not wanted by the local people.
“Giving permission for these houses would be the thin end of the wedge and make it harder to oppose later proposals for 1,250 more houses.”
Cllr Barr said at the last meeting of the borough council there was a debate about a Lib Dem proposal to give land at Peel Hall extra protection under the Queen Elizabeth Fields Challenge scheme.
He said: “Amazingly this was voted down by Labour on the grounds that ‘entering into a long-term contract with Fields in Trust could restrict the council from future development.’
“But such a restriction is exactly what we want! Why won’t Labour agree to this? What are their motives? We deserve an explanation.”
Lib Dems hit out over Peel Hall
1111 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
11 Comments
Bob Barr trying to cloud the issue as usual – the only land the Council has is Peel Hall Park – that is not Peel Hall! Satnam owns the land at Peel Hall and can put in applications as it wants and WBC can refuse them because they aren’t in the LDF. Local residents like me understand this – why not Bob Barr?
I am a member of the planning committee (like Bob) but I am reserving the right to say anything about the proposed application at the stage. I was on holiday last week and unable to attend the two presentations. However the issues around the application go back to at least 1999 when allegedly over 12,000 people signed a petition against. In addition there was a letter published by Poulton North Councillors at the time 26/11/12.
Case has not been made for Peel Hall
THIS letter and its sentiments could hardly be more illustrative of the emerging transparency of the council. We vigorously disagree with our colleague Pete Black (Deputy Chair of Strategic Planning Panel) as regards his comments on development at Peel Hall. We do not think Peel Hall should be developed for housing. As well as being a major green lung for those in North East Warrington its development would accentuate already difficult transport congestion. Furthermore it is a site of considerable archaeological and environmental significance.
Development of the site is not inevitable. Clearly after the Government Inspector’s report we will have to marshal extremely robust arguments to prevent it being turned into a building site. Nevertheless, we are simply not prepared to roll over and let the developer get his way. Neither do local residents wish us to do so.
We are still at the information stage and a lot more detail is required from the developer before we will be in a position to properly offer advice to our constituents. Furthermore, our approach has not been to indulge in irresponsible rhetoric (tempting though this is). For example and somewhat unusually we have suggested a number of sites in our Ward that may have potential to be used for housing. This in effect could take pressure away from the ‘numbers’ case being made for Peel Hall.
We do need more housing. All sorts of demographic changes are driving this. But in our view the case has certainly not been made that this should “inevitably” take place at Peel Hall.
ALBERT CLEMOW, JOHN GARTSIDE and JOHN KERR-BROWN
Councillors Representing Poulton North Ward
………………………………………. Ends……………………………………………..
I have requested details of the presentation material from last week from the developers communication team and I will spend time studying it carefully to see if anything has changed as well as reviewing any databases recorded by wildlife groups and talking to constituents.
I urge everyone else who might be affected to do their research as well and let people know what they think and believe, don’t be confused by any distractions.
These are my own personal views – at the moment I am keeping an open mind and do not wish to be distracted by other issues apart from the application.
Maybe it’s an error in the reporting. I doubt Bob Barr is unsure what he is talking about. I think the major objection is to the idea that once this goes ahead, there is a chance that it will open the door to development on Peel Hall Park. That seems to have been a concern for a while. And the fact the council did not move to to protect the land from development when it had a strightforward opportunity is the concern.
This is precisely why I need to see the plans to clarify the many questions that I have e.g.
What land is and what is not being built on, where access roads are being built, what protection is there for any red species of Bird and other endangered species like Greater Crested Newts, water vole, kingfisher etc even the hedgehog that is now coming under threat in the UK has a good foothold in this area.
Looking at the outline planning proposals the land being used is private so I don’t understand how the Queen Elizabeth Fields could have secured it. It belongs to Satnam as is not currently used for recreation. After all who would want to play alongside the M62 breathing in all those fumes and suffering from the constant noise? Plus the access will be down Mill Lane and past the Plough up to the Motorway and turn left so I can imagine there could be issues for Hough Green residents.
As for the Winwick Athletic FC my son used to play in goal for them over ten years ago and they were a bit nomadic then as there was no room on the Winwick Parish pitches. It was at the time when a local gentleman living off Windermere Avenue had just set up Radley FC and I asked him if he needed any players. As you can imagine my suggestion didn’t go down well with Winwick FC despite my son getting them a grant for a new football kit. Fortunately he went onto to play Rugby League and hasn’t looked back since.
So with this application there are a lot of issues in the field of play and I neeed to find out even more especially about all the players.
Oh and this is a proposed outline planning application. Has it been submitted yet – it will then have to go before the planners who will look at it in respect to the Strategic Borough Plan – is there a need for these houses and are there still gaps to be filled in throughout the town. Granted the old police college with its 220 houses is about a mile away and won’t be started for another 2yrs even though it has been granted outline planning permission.
But in the meantime come on down to the other Peel Hall – the Park – Friends of Peel Hall Park have their 3rd annual Fun Day tomorrow; Saturday – lots going on for all the family. Come and see what it looks like now after a great deal of hard work to start bringing it back to its former glory.
“…..there was a letter published by Poulton North Councillors at the time 26/11/12” ??
You may want to check that date Geofff
If I can pick one topic from the many you have raised in your multiple postings Geoff, it is that the proactive personal involvement in planning matters by our elected members, at long last, is a welcome and postive step forward, from that which preceded it for far too long. I hope all the parties will enthusiastically embrace this step change and not kill it off at the source by point scoring to seek political advantage. The people of Warrington have waited a long time for this and they deserve the benefits it will bring.
You’re probably referring to something that I have agreed with my solicitor and that of Bob’s to say nothing else about – even if others continue to.
The matter was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and a statement issued.
There was a challenge on Code of Conduct charges but there was no case to answer although no public statement was issued.
The whole experience taught me a great deal about being an election agent and a councillor and I did not shirk my responsibility.
It was a great learning experience, almost a political initiation, part of the toughening up exercise that we all have to go through. Im now older and wiser.
Thanks Karl for your kind comments but I must stress that they are my own and I am not expressing a view for or against this or any other application (except for one where I represent an organisation and which has been submitted as an application).
One reason why members of the planning committee do not express a view is the one that I mentioned above namely they have to have an open mind to sit on the planning committee and listen to the arguments on the night and ask questions impartially. During this process they can form a view and then they vote.
Being on the committee also exposes you to external pressure, lobbying and threats which can get extremely forceful at times – you can listen but if you express an opinion then you have been seen to show bias and again you will be liable to lose the right to be on the committee for that application, although you are free to stand down on the night and speak.
People speaking for and against applications and their supporter do get very angry at times and as with anyone if you are passionate then you do lose a head of steam. Even site visits have their dangers as I have found out. But hey that’s part of the job to analyse, enquire, make a decision and soak up the pressure as best you can.
On the plus side when someone with a strong case for an application is turned down by either planners and/or objectors and then they win they are so elated and thankful.
One clearly sticks in my mind when an objector turned up to oppose an application. On the night he stood down because he was basing his objections on 9 emails – all of which were generated by the same person using 9 different ids. The applicant was had been very nervous about sitting before the committee and I could see how much effort she had gone through. Rather than finish there and then I asked for her to be heard and she made a brilliant presentation.
Finally what it my opinion can really screw up the process is the rare occasion when political infighting takes place – this tends to distract from the core issue the planning application – but enough of that generally there is a great deal of consensus between members and any differences are down to the individual members interpretation.
No Geoff, I’m referring to your apparent time travelling!