ANGRY Cllrs and residents have raised concerns over transparency as the “to let signs” went up for units on the controversial Six 56 distribution centre proposal for Green Belt land at Grappenhall.
Seeing units being advertised for rent on a Langtree website before the application has even been to committee has sparked anger amongst local residents and local Cllrs, who have also criticised the way developers have been allowed private briefings with members of the planning committee.
Despite plans by Eddie Stobart for a smaller distribution centre being thrown out on nearby land, Langtree and Panattoni are pressing ahead with their own plans to create a huge logistics centre on neighbouring land, which includes an Ancient Monument and is believed to be the site of a Roman settlement and road.
Another Environmental Health Report and Environmental Impact Assessment have been submitted to Warrington Borough Council‘s planning department for Land to the west of Junction 20 of the M6 Motorway, and Junction 9 of the M56 Motorway and to the south of, Grappenhall Lane/Cliff Lane (known as Six:56 Warrington) Grappenhall, Warrington.
The Outline Planning (Major) – Outline application (all matters reserved except for access) comprising the construction of up to 287,909m² (gross internal) of employment floorspace (Use Class B8 and ancillary B1(a) offices), demolition of existing agricultural outbuildings and associated servicing and infrastructure including car parking and vehicle and pedestrian circulation, alteration of existing access road into site including works to the M6 J20 dumbbell roundabouts and realignment of the existing A50 junction, noise mitigation, earthworks to create development platforms and bunds, landscaping including buffers, creation of drainage features, electrical substation, pumping station, and ecological works, accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
The Liberal Democrat Planning Spokesperson on Warrington Council has criticised the way developers are allowed to give private briefings to members of the planning committee.
This practice has been highlighted by the recent briefing given to councillors over the massive proposed Six56 development near to Junction 20 on the M6.
Cllr Bate pictured when opposing the Stobart planning application
Cllr Ryan Bate says, “I am writing to senior officers at the Council about these briefings. I welcome the principle but the current process is unfair and lacks transparency. They are officer-led, but the applicants have the opportunity to make representations and to field questions from members. I understand these briefings are only open to officers and Committee members.
“Meetings about planning applications, supported by documents in the public realm, should be open to public scrutiny. They should be held in public so that concerned members of the public and their representatives can scrutinise the arguments made by the applicant. The Local Government Association’s Planning Advisory Service has published a guide, ‘Probity in Planning’, which clearly states that developer presentations to committee have the advantage of transparency if held in public. I want to know why the Council does not follow this advice.
“By opening up these briefings to proper public scrutiny, there can be a greater level of public trust in the planning system. If briefings take place behind closed doors, it makes it more difficult for the public to trust the Council.
“Major applications like this one are complex and involve significant social, economic and environmental impacts. It is unfair for the applicant to be given additional time to make the case for the development to members of the Committee. Yet members of the public and their representatives, who are often planning professionals, are limited to three speeches, totalling nine minutes, at the planning meeting. This is not a level playing field but favours the developers. It is unfair.
“Three senior planning professionals who I have contacted, have expressed their incredulity that briefings are happening behind closed doors without proper public record. One of them suggested that Warrington was confusing its role as an independent planning authority with the role of acting as a development corporation. Changes are needed.”
In the information advertising the site Langtree say: “Six 56 Warrington is the proposed strategic industrial / logistics development located at Junction 20 of the M6 and Junction 9 of the M56 Motorways benefiting from direct access to both motorways and the wider motorway network.
“Six 56 is a regionally important logistics location south of Warrington which is considered the premier location for Logistics in the North West given the motorway connections access to both Manchester and Liverpool within a 40 minute drive.
“The site is being promoted for up to 288,000 sq m of new employment accommodation and has the capacity to create upwards of 4,000 jobs in the local area.”
Warrington’s Director of Growth Steve Park said: “It’s common that a landowner and developer, when pursuing planning consent, will advertise a unit(s) usually making it clear that it is subject to planning, Omega was no different.
“The reason for this can sometimes assist the developer in the planning process to demonstrate demand if a unit(s) are pre-let subject to conditions (inc. planning).
“That said, I understand how this can be a worry \ frustration for residents and businesses who are already unsettled by the planning application.”
Whatever the decision made in Warrington, due to the size of the application and the fact it involves Green Belt land, it is highly likely to be called in by the Secretary of State to make the final decision.
Huge Six56 logistics hub back in the frame for Green Belt land
1 Comment
I’m struck by the comment that the the Liberal Democrat Planning Spokesperson on Warrington Council has criticised the way developers are allowed to give private briefings to members of the planning committee.
Who is this. Certainly not LD Cllr Wheeler.
A couple of weeks ago I had written to the S Warrington parishes group who are co-ordinating the 6/56 objections pointing out that briefings prior to a formal hearing between council and developer are not closed to the public, despite what council or councillors may say.
When I gave specific examples of how other councils handle pre-briefings in public, giving links to the LGA’s guidelines along with the Planning Officers Society guidelines which clearly say that the public are entitled to be involved, the immediate response from Cllr Wheeler was totally negative.
She told me not to ‘set hares running’ giving the clear impression she was not supportive of the public being involved at all.