MP Helen Jones today hit out over Warrington Borough Council’s local plan “preferred development option” – which looks set to be approved at a meeting of the council’s executive board tonight.
The Warrington North MP says the plan “clearly assumes” that houses will be built at Peel Hall – despite residents’ objections and despite the council previously opposing such proposals.
After studying the proposals, Ms Jones said today: “The council’s plans confirm the need for a new primary school to be provided as part of the Peel Hall site. This clearly assumes that the site will be built on in the future, despite residents’ objections, and ignores all the points they have made in the past. Concerned residents should make their views known to the council.
“We are told that the council needs this plan to control development. It is true that they need a plan but not necessarily this one.
“It is a plan to expand rather than a plan to meet the needs of people living in Warrington. We should be developing starter homes for young people and more social rented housing to meet the needs of Warrington people rather than planning homes on the green belt for commuters.
“No one has been consulted over the plan for a garden city and yet it has huge implications for the town.
“No plan which requires building on the greenbelt can be described as ‘sustainable’.
The MP calls on residents to object to the council’s proposals.
Cllr Terry O’Neill, leader of the borough council, has said the plan is crucial to guiding the borough’s growth and development over the next 20 years and supporting the council’s “new city” aspirations.
There will be a need for 24,000 new homes – including 9,000 in the Green Belt – and 381 hectares of land for employment will also be required – including 252 in the Green Belt.
If approved tonight, there will be an eight week public consultation starting on July 18.
As part of this there will be a series of public consultation events across the borough.
These will be at:
Thursday July 20- Winwick Leisure Centre, 4pm to 8pm
Tuesday July 25 – Bridgewater High School, Lower Hall site, 3pm to 8pm
Tuesday August 1 – Village Hotel, 3pm to 8pm
Wednesday August 9 – Birchwood Leisure Centre, 3pm to 8pm
Monday August 14 – Penketh High School, 3pm to 8pm
Tuesday August22 – Lymm Village Hall, 3pm to 8pm
Thursday September 7 – Pyramid Centre , 3pm to 8pm
A previous demonstration against Peel Hall housing
MP’s new fears over homes for Peel Hall
1414 Comments
14 Comments
She raises some very good points especially re the new school for Peel Hall site.
Does anyone know more about the ‘Garden City’ plans and what area that will be in.
….. Or better still is all the info available online somewhere for viewing NOW rather than having to wait until the consultation road shows.
I’m told there are plans for possible future flattening and redevelopment of the area around Sankey Green (Pink Eye) roundabout….is all that part of this Local Plan ?
Over arching all this is : “Cllr Terry O’Neill, leader of the borough council, [saying] the plan is crucial to guiding the borough’s growth and development over the next 20 years and supporting the council’s “new city” aspirations.”
It really is time Terry O’Neill and his council clique to join the real world, put their “new city aspirations” on the back burner, consider the people of Warrington now and get their act together to sort out the problems this town has now. There is little evidence of pragmatic planning so far, just vague promises and sound bites.
No ideas, no solutions, just interest in self promotion through the media. Whether you agree with this proposal or not, or see it as inevitable, at least Cllr O’Neill has the fact & figures to hand. But where are Helen’s costs and numbers for her ‘wants’? Nowhere to be seen as usual I’m afraid. Just vague platitudes but very little else.
What ‘facts and figures’ are you talking about BILLYWIRES? the supposed need for 24,000 new homes 9,000 on greenbelt? These are said to support the council’s “new city” aspirations. Well, here’s some news – in the bid for ‘city status’ the successful applicants are not chosen by size but by ‘DISTINCTIVENESS’!
After the destruction of Warrington’s heritage and bland build of the so called ‘town centre regeneration’ what could Warrington claim to be ‘distinctive’ for?
I don’t think ‘Ugliest town centre in Britain’, ‘Warehouseville’ or ‘Nowhereland’ will score any points!
If you want true facts and figures, here’s an example for you – bids for “new city” status are reliant on a petition and the last bid made by Warrington received ONLY THREE SIGNATURES!
I feel sure a petition from Warrington residents “WE DON’T WANT TO BE A CITY!” would get thousands more signatures!
Instead of concentrating on expansion, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on building homes which are actually needed for Warrington’s present residents rather than creating ‘dormitory estates’ for new-comers? The emphasis should be on “quality of life”.
A town with restored heritage assets, an abundance of nature reserves, fine parklands and green open spaces would be far more likely to meet the ‘distinctive’ criteria for a bid for “new city” status.
The point that I was making was that wherever you sit on the argument for or against this, the council provided details of their aims and the figures. The ‘Press Release only’ MP uttered generalisms about starter homes but failed to back this up with any projected figures of her own. Fairly typical behaviour.
The point I was making was that the details provided by the council are unreliable. There are no real reasons for setting a housing target so high. There is no real need for 24,000 houses, Warrington does not need to expand and the type of proposed homes on Greenbelt certainly do not fit the criteria of ‘very exceptional circumstances’ needed for giving planning permission on Greenbelt. It is misleading to imply that expansion is ‘crucial’ to a bid for “new city” status.
You criticise Helen Jones MP. for failing to give projected figures – but the projected figures given by the council are not backed up by any reliable evidence. WBC has form for giving out wildly distorted facts / figures to try to back up unpopular plans – remember the attempted sell-off of Walton Hall? Which was said by WBC’s officers to be running at a loss of over half a million a year – a freedom of information request proved it was actually running at a profit!
It is interesting to see the MP expressing concern about loss of Green Belt. Is she equally concerned about the Green Belt in Warrington South I wonder?
As Helen Jones says;
“It is a plan to expand rather than a plan to meet the needs of people living in Warrington. We should be developing starter homes for young people and more social rented housing to meet the needs of Warrington people rather than planning homes on the green belt for commuters.
and;
“No plan which requires building on the greenbelt can be described as ‘sustainable’.
These statements are applicable to and show concern for Warrington as a whole.
Her remarks about Peel Hall are reflecting the concerns of the people in her constituency – the people she is paid to represent.
South Warrington has it’s own MP – let’s hope Faisal Rashid will support us as strongly as Helen Jones supports her constituents!
My word. Yet again Helen on the receiving end of much praise by neutral supporters and people outside of her constituency. I am assuming that you are indeed ‘neutral’ and not generally a Labour supporter/voter? Helen will oppose anything and more so if it originates from the council. That isn’t evidence of her sticking up for her constituents, that is her simply waving two fingers to WBC. If she was so concerned about the future of Peel Hall and local residents, why did she not turn up to the Peel Hall public planning meeting at the Pyramid centre? It was on a Thursday evening so wouldn’t have clashed with parliamentary duties, and her absence surprised many. She has never given an adequate reason given for her not turning up, but many suspected that it was due to poor relationship with the vast majority of Labour councillors. As many have said on these pages and in other local media publications, if Helen thinks she can gain some air time, media coverage and an opportunity to stick the boot into WBC, then she does so with relish. But it’s never out of concern for the plight of constituents.
What Helen Jones MP. has said in the above news article, does reflect what the Peel Hall campaigners think – so obviously, they will be pleased with her on this occasion. As she is an MP her involvement helps to get the issue highlighted in the press and the points she has raised are valid.
You suggest that ” Helen will oppose anything and more so if it originates from the council.”
Over the years the “poor relationship with the vast majority of Labour councillors” and Helen Jones, has been well publicised – have you any idea why that is? It doesn’t appear to me to be because of any clashing viewpoints within the Labour Party. She appears to be a Blairite type and Warrington’s Labour council certainly don’t follow the more socialist ways of Corbyn – so what’s the problem? are they peeved that as an MP she has higher status? Is she peeved that Warrington ‘labour’ council’s egocentric aspirations and mass development plans at the cost of cuts to public services, (which far more reflect Tory Policy) are turning people off voting Labour and thus endangering her position?
You seem to have ‘inside knowledge’ of the rift between them BILLYWIRES – so perhaps you could enlighten us?
As for your question, as to whether I am politically ‘neutral’- I agree with what Helen Jones has said here, purely because I don’t believe Warrington needs the amount or type of housing proposed and I do believe that the Green belt is precious and should be protected – nothing to do with her political beliefs. On occasions when I haven’t agreed with her I have done so without any hesitation.
She didn’t attend the public planning meeting and it has to be said that one or two residents expressed surprise at her absence. It’s rumoured, only rumoured of course, that she did not attend as she didn’t particularly want to be put on the spot about the likelihood of the developer appealing and what the reality of that would be. After all that might just gloss over an important victory that she wanted to revel in. It’s also rumoured that she didn’t attend as she doesn’t particularly care to mix with the vast majority of Labour councillors, whom it is said; she considers being beneath her. Again, that’s just the rumours. If true though, that’s hardly the actions of a conscientious constituency MP, putting petty political rivalries before the needs of her residents, nor the actions of a self claimed socialist. More and more she is simply being seen as a ‘Press Release only’ MP; one always having her face in the local media but one who is rarely seen mixing with the public. I’ll have to accept your statement at face value that you are indeed not a Helen Jones stoodge as it’s also heavily rumoured that her staff are instructed to flood local message boards and forums such as these with the instructions to praise her wisdom and abilities amongst other things but to also kick Labour run WBC at every opportunity. And again if this is true then that would be more than damaging I’d say and may well put people off voting Labour wouldn’t it?
You appear to be lumping the known knowns; the things we know we know, with the known unknowns, that is to say the things we know we don’t know, but are rumoured to, and making your claims on that basis.
that’s worthy of Donald Rumsfeld..
Perhaps, but still true.