THE future of a family-run business, which will end up in the centre of the controversial Peel Hall development, hangs in the balance as planning officers seek ‘delegated powers’ from members of the council’s Development Management Committee (DMC) this Thursday, October 3.
Approval could mean the closure of 26-year-old Peel Hall Kennels. Owners Margaret and Kevin Steen are fighting for survival within a whirlpool of complicated planning procedure, even seeking the services of a specialist lawyer to protect their future.
Delegated powers will mean important phases of the development will be decided between the council’s planning team and developer Countryside Partnerships without the need for public consultation or further consideration from the DMC.
Both Margaret, a stalwart Peel Hall campaigner and parish councillor, and her husband fear key aspects of the plans, which include flood risk, drainage and noise will go ahead devoid of public knowledge and much-needed, detailed inter-action with leading agencies. If approved, it could mean that, when houses near their business are occupied, just one complaint of noise could see the family business shutting down.
Peel Hall campaigners are standing by the couple and claim that delegating power would result in ‘catastrophic consequences’ for adjoining communities and new homeowners and they point out that recommendations, made by a Planning Inspectorate Inspector to protect the kennels, are being sidelined.
The planning application should have been decided by the DMC on 18th July. However Warrington Borough Council planners allowed Countryside to submit late additional noise evidence without giving the couple the opportunity to take professional advice. Having already submitted professional noise reports and legal opinion, the Steen’s complained to the council’s planning department about procedural unfairness and requested additional consultation time. Unfortunately, the request was refused. However, on taking legal advice, the DMC was ‘postponed’ for a further 2-week period to allow the kennel owners to review Countryside’s report.
The last DMC meeting, due to take place on 19th September, was ‘postponed’ for ‘technical reasons’ due to the council’s failure to notify the public about the new documentation. Both Margaret and Kevin together withthe Peel Hall campaign team say that Thursday’s rescheduled DMC meeting is crucial and urge members to refuse handing down the reins to the planning team.
Margaret explained: ‘Rather than postpone the entire planning decision to review our evidence once again the planners have now asked the DMC to delegate decision-making, unless further material matters arise. Our noise specialists have found substantial errors and missing evidence, but unfortunately, the council’s environmental officer, who has admitted he did not have the equipment to verify either Countryside’s evidence or that of our expert, decided to back Countryside, despite the many questions put forward for clarification. It is scandalous.’
Margaret has also raised questions about Countryside’s plans for the public right of way on Radley Lane that runs adjacent to the site. She states that plans show that all the lay-bys are to be removed, adding ‘The public right of way team have not been consulted on this, and neither have the public. Local residents will have no safe spaces when walking down this lane. Traffic generated by our kennels (who have a legal right to use the lane) will have to reverse as far as 412 metres, but for some unknown reason the planners have not investigated this. The fire service has also raised their concerns regarding changes to the access they need at Radley Lane, but it seems to no avail. Health and safety doesn’t seem to be a priority’.
Campaigner Dave Sawyer has been challenging Countryside’s proposals for the site-wide drainage strategy. With an extensive drainage engineering background, Dave has highlighted significant errors in the site’s overall drainage strategy and has expressed serious concerns regarding future flooding around the Peel Hall site.
Dave points out that ‘there are many hundreds of residents who live in close proximity to the site whose properties might be put at greater risk of flooding as a result of the proposed development. Our welfare is paramount when it comes to making decisions about the Peel Hall site and yet I don’t see any evidence in the surface water drainage strategy to allay those fears.’ Dave added that ‘climate change projections are forecasting that heavy rainfall and flooding are likely to become much more frequent, and it is vital for all of us that this is dealt with in an appropriate way through a well designed Suds scheme for Peel Hall. Unfortunately the current design for the site appears to be a lost opportunity both to manage surface water going forward and to provide certainty to local residents that the site won’t be the subject of widespread flooding in the years to come.’
Margaret continued: ‘Dave is not on his own in raising concerns; the council Flood Risk team is also concerned and have posed many questions which have yet to be answered. Planners, however, want the DMC to approve these plans now. The big problem with this is that our planners seem to have no control over developers and what they do once they have the reserved matters approved, and this is clearly evidenced in the continuing development opposite Peel Hall at Mill Lane. At this site no development should have taken place above slab level until National Highways had approved the design.To date they still haven’t done, but onsite development continues and our council’s enforcement team refuse to take action.’
Countryside has also submitted plans to use Ballater Drive for access to build the spine road through to Poplars Avenue. This proposal is described as ‘temporary’ but campaigners fear it will become a permanent fixture subjecting residents to an ‘unacceptable’ timeframe with this quiet road being subject to hundreds of construction vehicles and employee parking. Campaigners say safety is being overlooked as an open-plan playing field runs the entire length of the drive.
Margaret concluded: “The whole plan is lacking in detail, and at the end of it all Countryside will walk away with their profit and it will be local residents who suffer the consequences”.
Fellow campaigner Wendy Johnson-Taylor concluded that ‘even council experts are crying out for more information. How can the DMC award planners delegated powers when vital parts of this plan still havegaping holes in it? I know that the current Labour Government is shouting build, build, build but I urge every member of this committee to put our communities first and refuse this application. This site is very complex with many serious issues that still need to be properly addressed prior to the commencement of construction work. Do DMC members seriously want to leave everything to chance or do they care enough to do the right thing?’
Outline planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State in November 2021 at Pel Hall for a mixed-use neighbourhood with up to 1,200 homes, a care home, pub/restaurant, primary school, food store, hot food takeaway, etc.
The scheme will also require the demolition of five existing houses in Poplars Avenue. Ten objections were received.
First phase of Peel Hall development facing opposition from 10 objectors
