Mayor Geoff Settle
DEVELOPERS Satnam are to submit new proposals for housing development at Peel Hall, Warrington.
The scheme involves 1,200 houses – a huge development compared with the unsuccessful plan for 150 homes they submitted in 2013 and subsequently lost on appeal.
Since then, however, the company has successfully challenged Warrington’s housing policy in the High Court, which means the scheme could be back in the melting pot.
The new plans will be on show at the Church of the Resurrection and St Bridget at St Bridget’s Close, Fearnhead on Saturday, January 23 – and Warrington North MP Helen Jones is urging people to attend.
The exhibition is part of a public consultation which must take place before a planning application is submitted.
Ms Jones said: “I have had a huge postbag on this issue over the years, with over a thousand signatures on a petition opposing any development at Peel Hall. It is clear local people are overwhelmingly opposed to any such plans.
“The message to Satnam is clear. However many times you come back, we will oppose you and we hope that the planning committee takes the same view when any application is submitted.“
Mayor of Warrington Geoff Settle – in his capacity as a Poulton North councillor – has also spoken out against the development.
He said: “Satnam do not have access to the site except Mill Lane and can’t build there unless the rest of the site is developed.
“They can’t develop the rest of the site until they get access permission
from the council.
“The ball is obviously in the council’s court – it’s going to be interesting to see how things develop.”
Ruth Shepherd, Satnam’s consultation manager and spokeswoman for the project, said: “We are aware the proposals brought forward in 2012 received a mixed reaction, and since then a lot of work has been done behind the scenes to respond to concerns and suggestions made at the time.
“While this proposal includes more homes, the development is comprehensive and will enable local residents and business owners as well as other interested parties to make an informed decision based on a whole masterplan rather than just a part of the vision.
“We are keen to hear from as many people as possible and would encourage those who can attend to come along and see the proposals and vision, and let us know what they think.”
Coincidentally, the Peel Hall Conservation Group – one of the organisations which opposed the last housing application by Satnam – is holding an open day at Cinnamon Brow Farm Club on Sunday (January 17) at 11am.
8 Comments
Thank you for the plug but can i say that Peel Hall Conservation group has never campaigned against any application or anything else for that matter.The PHCG was set up long after the last Satnam decision and was set up solely to teach people about the rich wildlife that we have on our own doorstep.
The campaign mentioned in your article was run by an individual called Ste Dodd in conjunction with various other local concerned individuals.
The camapin and Peel Hall Conservation Group are two separate entity’s
PHCG Chair
Ste Dodd
Well Ste, if the latest development goes ahead there will certainly be plenty of doorsteps! but what kind of wildlife are the “Peel Hall Conservation Group” expecting on them other than concrete models?
Good luck to the “Stop The Development Campaign Group”.
What has always baffled me is that all through this long Peel Hall Site Saga, nobody has yet asked for an inquiry into how Satnam managed to get this land at the low ‘agricultural value’ yet can now apply to develop it. When agricultural land is sold it is quite usual for the seller to include a legal agreement ensuring that should the land be later used for development then the original owner would get a substantial share of the profit.
Wasn’t the original owner WBC? Do WBC stand to gain £££££££’s if the development goes ahead? If not, why was the land sold to a development company at agricultural value (without such a profit share contract) when it would be obvious that agricultural use would be the last thing a developer would want it for? If WBC had, at the time of selling, intended it to remain ‘agricultural land’ why weren’t steps taken to ensure that a future ‘change of use’ couldn’t be made?
As a private individual my opinion is your questions are very interesting SHA,?.
I think you will find that it was raised in Parliament many years ago and that concerned was dismissed. So as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done. It is no longer considered to be green land 🙁
Hi Geoff, Where exactly will I find it was raised in Parliament? Was it raised in Parliamentary questions and if so by who? Would you know the date? (or approximate date) so that I could look it up and read it myself.
I’m not clear what part of my questions/concerns you are referring to as ‘it’.
Your last statement “It is no longer considered to be green land”. leads me to think that it was possibly the change of use from ‘green’ to ‘development’ land that you are referring to. Obviously this has been sanctioned as otherwise the latest planning application wouldn’t have been submitted. This wasn’t really the issue I was questioning.
What I really want to know is WHO, on behalf of WBC arranged the sale to Satnam? WBC (as representatives of the people of Warrington) when selling the town’s assets are obliged to get the best possible value. At the time of selling this land it would have been known that at some stage in the future there could be a ‘change of use’ and the land could be used for development – so selling it to Satnam for merely the agricultural value without including a legal agreement for WBC to have a share in any future profit was downright negligent! To Satnam getting a deal like that must have been like winning the lottery! I’m surprised every businessman in England didn’t put a bid in! The fact that other developers didn’t offer a better deal makes me wonder if any proper procurement procedures were carried out?
Whether or not the change of use issue was dismissed by Parliament is not relevant to the fact that there should be some inquiry into how (and who by) this incredible land sale deal was made. As it stands, Satnam will make millions and the people of Warrington will not only lose their green land but also the millions in shared profit that they should have got.
Personally I don’t think that just dismissing the issue by saying “as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done” is enough.
Geoff, this is not a personal criticism of you, as I really appreciate that you have taken the time to read and respond to my questions, but I would have expected that out of the 50+ Borough Councillors of this town that the majority, if not all, would be hopping mad at Warrington losing out like this!
Not that long ago, we almost lost Walton Hall and Gardens in a crazy attempt to sell it off for just £1 to a hotel company. What is going on and why do our councillors just sit back letting things like this happen?
Hi Sha – I’d have to search the archives but it was raised by the Warrington North MP. I think the deal was actually done by Warrington New Town – the local councillors in ward and adjoining wards are hopping mad and I set up the last last campaign the Facebook site ‘Fight Against Peel Hall Development’ https://www.facebook.com/FightAgainstPeelHallDevelopment/?fref=ts
and small committee with it.
One of our committee had realms of technical data and has documented the history back to 2,000 and before something like 3 or 4 volumes.
Another useful site set up at the time is “woodland and wildlife against the development of radley common” https://www.facebook.com/groups/woodlandwildlifeagainst/ A great deal of wildlife data has been recorded onto the RODIS Cheshire Database since 2013 as a consequence of this hard working group that may hightlight the significance of what might get destroyed.
Take the recent clearance that took place along side the fences at the western end of the red outline on their planning map – however it is the ploughing up and setting fire to the eastern part of the site in my view is a crime against wildlife but apparently it’s not a criminal offence.
I have learnt as a councillor (but not in this case) that you have to be very careful about what you say otherwise accusations are made against you and it can get expensive but that’s another story 🙂
Looking at the extreme right of Satnams projetion map, Ballater fields are included again but also the Millhouse its car park and next to it the WBC car park are included. i wonder if Joseph Holts knows about this.