TOWN Hall chiefs have agreed to extend the consultation period for the controversial Warrington Local Plan preferred development option.
Members of the public will be able to have a say on the proposals until Friday, September 29 at 5pm.
The two week extension is to ensure all residents and stakeholders are given sufficient time to make written representations following an additional drop-in event which is being held on Monday, September 4 at the Park Road Hotel, Stretton Road.
Anger has erupted across the borough, although mainly in the south, since it was revealed by council leader Terry O’Neill that the plan would provide land for about 24,000 houses over the next 20 years – 9,000 of which would have to be in the Green Belt.
Land would also be needed to provide employment, with 252 hectares in Green Belt areas and 129 hectares in existing urban areas.
A series of consultation meetings has been going on for some weeks but these have sparked fury among residents, partly because of the proposals themselves but also because many of the planning officers sent to answer questions admitted they did not even live in Warrington.
Fears were voiced that homes would become impossible to sell because of the fear that new roads or industry would be built nearby.
An oft repeated protest is that property will be blighted even if the proposals are never progressed.
There was also anger at the council’s insistence that Warrington should continue to push for city status, with most people saying they did not wish to live in a city.
Many residents have criticised the council for holding the consultation during the August holiday period when many people are away.
The extension to the consultation period will not include any further consultation events. The final event will be at the Pyramid, Palmyra Square, on Thursday September 7.
Cllr Judith Guthrie, the council’s lead member for environment, said: “We would like to thank everyone for their contributions to the consultation and we continue to urge members of the public and stakeholders to submit their views via the formal representation process. The online standard response form is the quickest and simplest method for submitting your comments.”
Cllr Ian Marks, chairman of the Liberal Democrats in Warrington said: “There are a number of big questions. We are ambitious for Warrington but why do we have to have so many houses? The justification for them is extremely limited. Why are so many proposed for south of the Ship Canal? Why do we have to sacrifice all this Green Belt? Do we want something called a ‘Garden City Suburb’ in the south?
“Our roads cannot cope with the current levels of traffic. The new Mersey Gateway Bridge is about to open and the imposition of tolls will divert more traffic through our town which will make congestion worse. Roads in and around Stockton Heath are frequently gridlocked now.”
The plan sets out the number of homes the council believes can be accommodated in each of the Green Belt areas – Lymm – 500, Culcheth – 300, Burtonwood – 150, Winwick – 90, Croft – 60, Glazebury – 50, Hollins Green – 40. Specific sites will be confirmed at the next stage of the process.
Cllr O’Neill has said the local lan is crucial in guiding its growth and development over the next 20 years, supporting the “New City” aspirations and ensuring the housing, business, jobs and infrastructure the borough needs are provided.
He says most of the proposed sites are in urban areas with the vast majority of the Green Belt saved and maintained for the next 30 years.
4 Comments
“The two week extension is to ensure all residents and stakeholders are given sufficient time to make written representations”
They time the consultation over the school holiday period, which they know full well will be the time people have no free time, then just add on a couple of weeks! “Sufficient time”, to wade through such an amount of complex proposals?
Many people won’t even have had chance to look at the supporting documents, let alone make sense of them! And if they are hoping to get some answers at the meeting they will probably be disappointed – the officers seem just as confused as the people asking the questions.
Nobody is fooled, there hasn’t been much attention paid to how the proposed road network could be viable or even possible, the main objective is to get the housing targets set to give them the go-ahead for mass expansion. The mess will be dealt with later.
Spot on! The plan is very complex to understand written in pseudo legal planning jargon. Full of inconsistencies No attempt is made to convey the real impact of so many houses and industrial units on a human scale. Without using the app on your phone, does the average person know how big a hectare is? How that relates to the size of your own flat or house or garden? Can you even recognise your own street on the colouredin maps they provided? They look like they were filled in by a 4 year old who’s had too many smarties.
“………..we continue to urge members of the public and stakeholders to submit their views via the formal representation process. The online standard response form is the quickest and simplest method for submitting your comments.”
They have been “urging” (rushing?) people to get their responses in, and a lot of people will have rushed to do this without properly weighing up the pro’s and con’s or ensuring their objections are ‘material considerations’ (if they are not they are worthless).
WBC are not after their views – just ticks in the box for ‘high participation. So if anyone has rushed and now thinks they should have included more on their online response they should email further details in. The online response form may be the quickest and simplest – for them! The sooner they ‘get this consultation over with’ the sooner they can put the kiss of death on our green fields. I will be giving my response the day before the consultation ends!
Cllr Ian Marks said………….
and the pantomime begins!
“There are a number of big questions…….(note that’s a statement = questions that the people are asking)
These are all actually questions he should be answering! not trying to weasel his way out of having a hand in it all!
Didn’t he and Bob Barr “dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s on the town centre redevelopment projects when they were in power at the town hall? Wasn’t it them who demolished Stockton Heath Primary to build a bigger school which wasn’t needed and which we all knew was them getting the infrastructure in place ready for future developments?
Cllr Terry O’ Neill;
“supporting the “New City” aspirations” (= their aspirations, not ours!)
What’s the betting that Cllrs Ian Marks & Terry O’Neill will BOTH BE VOTING YES TO RATIFYING THE PLAN FOR MASS EXPANSION ON 31st OCT?
Whether any of the other 56 councillors have the backbone to vote against their leaders remains to be seen!