Plan would have cleared Octel site (From Warrington Guardian)

Plan would have cleared Octel site

ONE or two points of correction to the letters you published in response to the letter from Councillor Willington and myself.

Councillors Fellows and McEllin should be informed that, although the Lib Dems on the county council may have voted against Longwood, their colleagues at Vale Royal have remained silent on the issue however they may have voted. If the county council is so responsive to public opinion, why is Marbury Lane still closed?

The government inspectors who spoke against the inclusion of Longwood did so with regard to the site's inclusion in the county's Structure Plan, because it had not been prioritised at a regional level, and for no other reason.

Councillor Lloyd-Griffiths has either a short memory or is not concerned with collective responsibility regarding Longwood. He and other County Councillors and officers wanted Vale Royal to reduce the land allocated for development to match their projections, which did not include Longwood and the Gadbrook West site because they were put forward as regional sites. Such sites do not count when allocating land for strategic purposes.

I can understand people wanting to protect special sites, but would the people of Lostock rather be stuck with the poisonous ruin that was Associated Octel?

BOB MATHER

Chairman, Land & Economic Development, Vale Royal Borough Council

Converted for the new archive on 13 March 2001. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.