ALMOST 40 per cent of objections to Warrington’s planning blueprint for the future relate to one issue – the proposal to identify Peel Hall as a strategic location for development.
The majority are from nearby residents who object to the site being developed at any time in the future because of the loss of open green space and the likely traffic impact on local roads.
Town Hall chiefs are being asked to approve the Warrington Local Development Framework Core Strategy for submission to the borough council.
If approved by the council, there would then be further consultation and when finally adopted, the Core Strategy will replace the existing Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
More than 370 representations were received in response to a consultation on the draft Core Strategy, from a total of 144 respondents.
A report by Cllr David Keane (pictured), the council’s executive member for the environment, to the executive board, identifies Omega and Lingley Mere as a strategic location for economic development.
But it is the Peel Hall proposal that draws the bulk of opposition.
The report stresses there are no proposals to build on Peel Hall Park, which is protected from development through the council’s planning policy.
But the future of the wider Peel Hall Farm area, bought by Satnam Millennium Ltd from the former New Town Development Corporation, many years ago, is undecided.
It was allocated for development as long ago as 1972, but the council has managed to successfully argue that it is not needed for housing.
Satnam, however, has through a legal challenge, managed to prevent it from being designated as Green Belt. The company has consistently sought to persuade the council to allocate the land for early development while the council has argued that building is not necessary.
Cllr Keane warns, however, that if the Core Strategy is not adopted, the council’s ability to influence how much and where new development should be focussed would be substantially weakened
Peel Hall triggers objections
88 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.
8 Comments
Given the way the council ignores the UDP already, not to mention the way the planning department ignores its own policies, is any of this worthwhile?
It’s quit damning that the council release is issued with a threat, or that’s how it reads’ about opposing the Core Stratergy will lead to other developments being imposed. Scare mongering at the highest level?
I think it should be stressed that this report is NOT based on a council release
Regardless, David, I can see what Dr PS is getting at, it’s an interestingly phrased last line from Cllr keane there.
Just how does that work then?
It does sound a bit like “if you don’t do what we want, then you’ll be at the mercy of the developers”.
Happy to be corrected though.
It certainly sounds like that was what Cllr Keane wanted to get over, even if it wasn’t the overall opinion of the official council line.
As far as developments go, Warrington is already like the Wild West. The council already doesn’t enforce its own policies and strategies so why anybody expects anything different is mystifying. It might have been more worthwhile forgetting about the development of any new policies and strategies and just concede it all gets made up as they go along, generally in the favour of developers and generally regardless of breaches.
Sigficant isn’t it that the public is invited with the appropriate fanfare to participate in the overall planning strategy for the borough, yet when tangible public concerns are voiced on particular schemes they are ignored? And when UDP proves to be an irritation to the planners, like magicians they produce an alternative more malleable one out of the hat.
Oldham Borough Council also appears to ignore its own Adopted unitary plan too. Like grey_man says Oldham Council seems to approve plans in favour of developers regardless of whether it breaches Oldham Council’s Adopted Unitary Plan. They have approved a development for 165 houses and some are to be built an astonishing 9 metres away from my own property in to a cramped plot so small that the houses rooms will be triangular. Who wants a house that is triangular??? The developers are grabbing at every bit of spare land. It is scandalous.
Oldham Council said they considered objections at the planning committee and did not consider the new properties will be detrimental to existing properties. I wonder if they would be so happy if a development was to be built 9 metres away from their habitable windows so that they are overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing!!
No I don’t think so some how. I am absolutely disgusted.