Peel Hall campaigners swallow “bitterest pill” as council decide not to challenge 1,200 home development

RESIDENTS fighting to Save Peel Hall have swallowed the ‘bitterest campaign pill’ after being told Warrington Borough Council will not be seeking a High Court challenge to stop a 1,200 home ‘multi-use’ neighbourhood on the last natural green space in the north of the town.

The decision comes after deliberations from two QCs who both advised that there were no grounds to legally challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to approve an appeal by landowner Satnam Millennium Ltd.

“We have been in communication with council chiefs and unfortunately this is the most bitter pill to have to swallow,” said Save Peel Hall Group campaigner Wendy Johnson-Taylor. “We are very disappointed however, we have to give the council some credit for being thorough before reaching this decision.”

She went on to say: “For more than 30 years we have fought to save this green space. Throughout we have been victorious in this battle, but we have now lost the war.”

But she said that all hope is not lost as the campaigners have welcomed the council’s invitation to work with them as the development moves forward and she reassures supporters that the group intends to be there every step of the way to make sure the community will get the best result possible.

Fellow campaigner Dave Sawyer said: “As a Rule 6 Party at the appeal inquiry we were mostly responsible for beefing up on the conditions, particularly concerning noise and air quality and these are very weighty. These were down to our hard work and probably wouldn’t have seen the light of day otherwise.” He added that the group intended to ensure the contents of the revised Local Plan will be honoured, objections and documentation to the draft have been submitted by the group and that campaigners have requested representation at any future plan inquiry.

Another campaigner, former Mayor Geoff Settle added: “Our involvement from now on will mitigate some of the damage to Peel Hall and surrounding area, but also to the rest of Warrington. However, we still believe the end result will be devastating for north Warrington.”

Fellow campaigner Ste Dodd said: “It’s with a heavy heart I have to say that the battle to save Peel Hall is over. The residents of Peel Hall can hold their heads up high, their resilience, determination, and sense of community spirit at the helm right from the start of the fight and even in defeat is inspirational. If WBC had applied a fraction of what campaigners brought to the table Peel Hall could have been saved years ago. Nothing can replace what we are about to lose.”

On reflection, Wendy further commented: “My personal opinion is that our council has been extremely naive for presuming that Peel Hall was safe as long as it was in the plan. If this was the assumption it has backfired. They should have been braver by declaring it undevelopable and removing it as a site suitable for development. This was the only way that Peel Hall was going to be protected and it would most certainly have created major headaches for Satnam. I am convinced that creating such hurdles could have kicked that can down the road and who knows? Peel Hall would become undevelopable by then.”

“We asked the council on numerous occasions to degrade the site. It should have been removed from the plan and definitely not showcased the way it was, but for reasons only they know, this has never happened. One day we will find out but by then, as our campaign slogan said ‘Too late when it’s gone. The council has committed to involving the Rule 6 Parry in negotiating conditions and I trust they will honour this commitment to the fullest. At least we can then ensure the best we can for us all.”

Chief Executive of Warrington Borough Council, Professor Steven Broomhead MBE, said: “We have previously expressed our disappointment and frustration at the decision to allow the appeal at Peel Hall.

“The only option available to challenge this decision is through a Judicial Review, which would review the decision by the Secretary of State. We have sought external advice from two independent QCs, have met with community representatives on three occasions and have considered whether we would be able to proceed through general review of the decision and by seeking answers specifically to issues raised by the council, as well as those raised by the local community.

“Regrettably, the legal advice we have received is that there would be no realistic prospect of successfully appealing the decision. Given this, we will be making the disappointing decision not to pursue further legal action. We will, however, continue to discuss the site with local representatives who have been involved in the appeal process with a focus on planning conditions which formed part of the decision for the site.”