A PLAN for a new out-of-town shopping centre at Warrington is being recommended for approval – despite highways objections and being contrary to the borough planning policy.
The six retail or leisure units – one earmarked for a coffee shop – will be built at Chetham Court, Winwick Quay, close to LA Bowl, if councillors agree
The plan comes before the borough council’s development management committee on Thursday with a recommendation from planning officers that it be approved.
Officers admit the scheme is a departure from the development plan.
Planners admit it could set a precedent for future of-of-centre scheme and would create a leisure destination in an unsustainable location.
But they point out it is next to a bowling alley and children’s indoor play facility and is in an area of high deprivation and could increase the level of employment.
They say despite local and national planning guidance, the scheme represents a rare opportunity to continue the environmental and visual transformation of a significant site within the Winwick Road corridor.
A PLAN for a new out-of-town shopping centre at Warrington is being
recommended for approval - despite highways objections and being
contrary to the borough planning policy.
New out-of-town shops planned
1212 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three 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. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
12 Comments
What will be the impact on the town centre and the already congested roads in the area? Why, if it is against policy, is it being recommended by officers? Do we really need another out of town centre? Is anybody within the council in control of planners, or at least challenging them?
You’re right to be concerned about the futue of the town centre. But the Policy Team in Planning is actually very good and very committed to Warrington. They have obviously flagged up the policy issues in this case, but (not for the first time ) will have been over-ruled from ‘on high’ . I’m sure that the recommendation from the officers really means the recommendation from the Director, and not from those who really know and care about enforcing the policies!
And who is that?
Birchwood Bob
If this is the case, then what is the point of having a policy? And if there’s no point in having a policy, what is the point of the current inquiry into policies following the records destruction and Marton Close scandal? And why have a team of people in the planning department? Should we get rid of the lot of them and just have the Director decide from ‘on high?
Not for the first time we need to as the ultimate question: where are our elected councillors?
Once more we see “Officers” recommending outside of “Policy”. Why have a Planning Department at all? We might as well simply have an autocratic Director who can simply do as they like! The outcome of the current investigation will be interesting since it is likely to be simply a “whitewash”. I wonder, as you do GM, when our local “elected” Councillors are going to get a grip of things and come up with some solutions for the current mess at the Town Hall in line with public opinion. We can but dream!!!
Can I assume that Helen Jones MP would be in favour, having welcomed the Decathlon store ?
The lights at Calver Road cannot cope with traffic there as it is. They also forget to mention the gym on that complex as well. Perhaps they’ll make a new entrance on Winwick Road and stick yet a further set of lights on that road.
GM you are quite correct in questioning the point of having planning policies if local authorities themselves are going to ignore them. Unfortunately that’s what happens all over the country, not just in Warrington, wherever someone ‘with clout’, usually one of the Council Directors or the politicians, decides that they are an inconvenience. Areas of deprivation and employment levels are two of the most convenient reasons to forget adopted policies, despite these having been agreed through a lengthy legal process involving widespread public consultation. It’s not democratic but it’s the real world. My own view in this case is that the Council should be protecting the town centre, which is far more important than employment in the immediate locality.
I think you may be confusing landuse planning policies and more general professional issues when you start talking about policies relating to the destruction of records. My initial comments relate only to the former and what should be permitted. I regularly deal with many different local authorities and their planning policy teams. My experience has been that Warrington has one of the best to deal with in terms of their helpfulness and professionalism. The destruction of records relating to planning applications is something different entirely. I know little about the Warrington case and haven’t been following the details. But I’m certain its different people we’re talking about.
Lastly, regarding CTP’s comments, if you’re going to get rid of anyone, I suggest you make it the autocratic Director. In my experience they usually know less about what’s going in their area than any of their staff. And you’ll save more money!
Some of the people responsible for the destruction of records are still in situ including people who covered up for it for four years. I recommend you read the LGO report if you haven’t done so.
The general point about the inquiry remains in my view. It is pointless holding it as a way of examining failures of policy if policy is routinely ignored as it has been in the past and is now, regardless of the nature of that policy. Especially if, as is possible, the person ignoring the policy may have conflicting objectives for their decisions on matters of this kind.
There does not seem to be a planning application for this project yet. So it is impossible to register objections at this stage. The best thing to do now would be to write Helen Jones MP (via http://www.writetothem.com/ ). That is what I shall do.
Although not doubting Birchwood Bob’s sincerity on the basis of his own experiences, his take on the planning department is intriguing. However, after reading and rereading the LGO’s report I am not convinced of any apparent positive commitment of the Planning Policy Team (whoever they are?) or anyone involved in planning in this borough for that matter. There has been a marked absence of openness and transparency in too many of planning related matters for too long to suggest otherwise.
I share GM’s and CTP’s hope that our local “elected” Councillors will begin to face facts, get a grip of things and come up with some solutions for the current mess at the Town Hall in line with public expectation. But like them, I fear this but a dream and a wild one at that.
It is to be hoped the independent inquiry, even with such a limited remit, has not been arranged to be yet another version of pass the parcel of responsibility. Where everyone points accusing fingers at everyone else, ticks the ‘right boxes’ and proclaims their own blamelessness, in the hope it will bemuse us in to accepting and settling for the now usual mantra of “lessons leaned”, and so forget all the other planning related mismanagement and maladministration.
There is a planning application otherwise it would not be going to the Dev Managmemnt Committee on Thursday. According to the agenda item and info related to it for the meeting the planning application number is 2011/18861 (accessibly via the CMIS website link on the councils website) HOWEVER…. having just gone onto the ‘environment and planning’ section of the council’s website where you are supposed to be able to view the plans and comment… you are right … it simply sayd “No Matching Applications Found ” WEIRD !! Surely any decision on Thursday should be deferred if no-one can actually view the plans and details or make comment either in favour or against. 😉 I’m not bothered either way though to be honest as I cant see 6 units up there changing what they do making any big difference really.