Warrington-Worldwide.co.uk incorporates the Village Life, Culcheth Life, Frodsham Life & Lymm Life magazines.

Residents fear rowdy youths


ANGRY Culcheth residents fear they face an increase in anti-social behaviour near their homes after a footpath was widened and tarmacced.
People living in Severn Road and Thames Road say they already suffer problems with unruly youths congregating on the path, shouting, swearing, drinking and kicking fences.
They claim they were not consulted about the footpath improvement before the work was started.
One resident, Gill Lomas, claimed the work had also had a damaging impact on wildlife, with a number of hedgehogs disturbed and one dying.
The footpath leads from Thames Road to an old railway bridge nearby.
Residents have raised the issue with the borough council, the police and local councillors.
Gill said: “I would like to know why myself and my neighbours were not consulted about the widening and tarmaccing of the path before the decision was made to do it.
“The path is now so wide it would easily fit the best part of 100 teenagers on the bridge.
“I’m also bemused as to why other more widely used public footpaths that people want to use are ignored and left in a state that make them impossible to use.
“I have spoken to many neighbours whose properties back on to the path, who have told me there was no consultation – just a letter say the work was going to be done.
“We are sure the path will now attract more youths, drinking and littering.
“Neighbours already have to endure fences being kicked in, litter thrown off the bridge and youths playing chicken on a ledge on the bridge.
“There is constant swearing, fires being started, explosions involving gas canisters and youths peering into gardens.
“I can’t believe in a democratic society this has been allowed to happen with no consideration to how it affects people’s everyday lives.”
A borough council spokeswoman said: “We consulted households backing onto the footpath and did a letter drop.
“The footpath leads to a former landfill site which is now a nature reserve and with increased footfall we are upgrading the footpath to allow for greater access to the nature reserve.”


About Author

Experienced journalist for more than 35 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with six 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. Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.


  1. It seems these residents are completely missing the point complaining about footpath improvement when first they should be sorting out their anti social issues. Also arguing that the improvements only benefit the yobs is rather like saying road improvements only benefits speeders and criminals. Think I understand what they’re trying to say but it doesn’t come across very well.

  2. If the council say the have consulted the householders but the householders say they haven’t been consulted, their local councillors should be looking into the perceived lack of communication. As Bill says, the antisocial behaviour needs to be sorted out. Aren’t the police now supposed to do something if a number of people report the same issues in an area? Encourage all your neighbours to phone every time there is an incident.

  3. The concerned neighbours have had a letter drop, ignored it and then complained after the event. Bill’s summary is spot on, this unruly behaviour has been going on unchecked for ages. However if you read the Parish Council Minutes you won’t find it.

  4. There shouldn’t really be any need for “consultation” when it comes to simply maintaining pathways other that to maybe advise people of any disruption. There would have been contact details somewhere on their letter and that’s often what passes for consultation these days.

  5. What exactly is the Parish Council doing about it? Why isn’t it referred to in the PC Minutes? Have the residents decided to go public on this because they are not getting a meaningful response from the Parish Council? As others have said antisocial behaviour has sadly become an all too common fact of life.

  6. Maybe if the council leaders hadn’t cut the budget for youth work in the area then more could be done to support these young people and preventing them from being anti social. In April the work with young people will be cut again even further where we will all be experiencing this type of problem!

  7. In reply to Joe Allen. Do you really think taxpayers should reward these hooligans for their bad behaviour? I think if facilities were supplied they’d probably wreck them. What kind of example is being set if the council panders to the pathetic tantrums of already undisciplined infantiles? Whilst I think youth facilities should be provided locally in all areas of the town, for those who are grown up enough to use and appreciate it, I think in this area the priority should be for parenting classes and support for those residents who are having to put up with these dummy spitting morons.

  8. Hear hear, if I found out my two children were annoying people as has been described, they would be grounded for a month. Once it used to be kids who were seen and not heard, now it’s the case of too many parents who believe out of sight out of mind is acceptable parental behaviour. No wonder their kids behave as they do.

Leave A Comment