Dementia care unit could be approved (From Warrington Guardian)

It will be VERY interesting to see how this one turns out. Caring for people in general is a very emotional issue, never mind care for dementia sufferers. This particular care home is in an area of protected Green Belt and in the case of this type of building, it is most definately classified as inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. It has taken a great deal of time for the application to get to this stage, the details of the application are very complicated (you will need to read through everything for all the details)and I'm pretty sure that the planning department will have taken a great deal of care in coming to a conclusion and actually make their recommendation (which is to refuse the application). On balance, I believe this recommendation to be correct; the proposed new building is enormous and there are a number of other sites available pretty close to this site that are not in the Green Belt (one of these is a empty purpose built care home less than 3 miles away). If built, it will have a significant detrimental impact on the Green Belt, which could quite easily set a precident for the rest of the Green Belt areas around the Town, not just this one. There is a real danger that the committee could make their decision based on emotion rather than fact and it will be interesting to see if the committee support the officer view or vote for approval....lets wait and see.

I do think there are sites that are Brownfield all over Warrington that could be used, and the disruption the construction would cause in the area would be massive.

"There would be 27 parking spaces for 83 staff if the home is built."..... The company would employ 83 staff as a total number, if its providing 24hr care, why would all 83 members of staff be in at the same time?!? Any 'traffic increase' would be for half an hour probably twice a day when staff shifts change!

We need more residential dementia care and we also need the jobs! Tell the NIMBYS to move if they don't like progression!!

If the projections are correct, we won’t be able to afford silly nimby arguments like this because we’ll need one on almost every road. You can’t build every care home miles away just because you don’t want traffic problems that’s just plain stupid. I’ve has an elderly parent with dementia in such a place having to drive several miles each day to visit isn’t the right way of going about things.

Let every person who doesn’t want a care home anywhere near their property stand up now so that we can be sure that when it comes to their time of need we’ll make sure their also as far away from their family as possible.

This isn't about NIMBYism nor is it about construction disruption or the need (or otherwise) for more demntia care. The real issue here is whether or not to build something this size, in the Green Belt is appropriate or not - particularly when there are other brownfield sites available within a very short distance from the site.

I don't live anywhere near this site, but I am a planning consultant and so I always keep an eye on how planning departments and planning committees come to their decisions.

The Green Belt is there for a reason and until such time as that is changed, (which isn't very likely in the immediate future), then planning decisions have got to take Green Belt restrictions into account.

All planning decisions are open to some interpretation and this is one that is quite finely balanced. With the recent issues that there have been in Warrington's planning department, the officers will be extremely cautious about making the correct decision. If they recommend approval, it could set a precident and open the flood gates for all manner of Green Belt development, if they refuse it, they take the chance of being challenged at appeal. I'd be very surprised if the planning department haven't taken expert external advice on this one before making their recommendation. They have actually recommended refusal on Green Belt issues, not highways and the planning committee (who I have got to say are not planning professionals) have requested further highway/parking information, so it would appear that they are considering going against the officer recommendation and approving the application.

The only point I am making here is that it will be interesting to see which way this application goes thats all.

its a ridicules comment to say move if you don't like it, if someone wanted to build a prison or a factory next door to you would you object, or would you just move, I think I know the answer to that, this NIMBY thing is just a way of trying to insult people who have the right to object.

And to be clear I don't live on or near the estate, but there is areas nearby that can be used, as no doubt the staff will not be coming from that area anyway they will be travelling.

there is a care home there now and people accept it they just don't think its appropriate to build over green belt land, what about the area of land at the bottom of stocks lane its 5 mins away and just sitting derelict

the dr who wrote:
its a ridicules comment to say move if you don't like it, if someone wanted to build a prison or a factory next door to you would you object, or would you just move, I think I know the answer to that, this NIMBY thing is just a way of trying to insult people who have the right to object. And to be clear I don't live on or near the estate, but there is areas nearby that can be used, as no doubt the staff will not be coming from that area anyway they will be travelling. there is a care home there now and people accept it they just don't think its appropriate to build over green belt land, what about the area of land at the bottom of stocks lane its 5 mins away and just sitting derelict

nah......i dont need to worry about that, i have houses either side of me!!!

Is it greenbelt as assumed or was this proposed building site on the land that was once part of the estate of the original mansion? If this is correct then my opinion is that I would see no argument to the contrary and the proposed development should therefore go ahead.

SAC - The whole of the site is in the Green Belt, which therefore means that all the relevent Green Belt policies apply to it - pretty much regardless of what buildings are there now or may have been there in the past.

Just because there may have been a building on the site 10 years ago or 50 years ago is not sufficient justification to build something else.

Green Belt planning policies can be quite complex, especially for something like this particular proposal. It certainly isn't a simple application to consider, but allowing development (of any sort) in the Green Belt needs to be justified and be proven to be acceptable to a far greater degree than most other areas. I am not saying there is or is not a need for dementia care at all - there may well be, but what needs to be very carefully considered is whether or not there is satisfactory justification for a building of this size, in a protected area of green belt, when there are other areas currently available elsewhere in the area and also across the Borough.

To be able to justify something like this the applicant needs to show that they have demonstarted 'very special circumstances' - enough to allow development control to recommend approval (or indeed for the planning committee to approve it).

Like the Green Belt policies themselves, very special circumstances are open to some interpretation and can be a matter of opinion. There is some case law on this subject (where others have tested it in the courts) and there are also plenty of other planning cases available across the country for development control to consider as well.

I understand the general point made by Bill Paddington, but there is nothing to say that all the potential occupants of the dementia care unit would be from the immediate area - in fact I doubt very much that this would be the case here, undoubtedly there will be some, but there are also likely to be other from other areas of Warrington, Widnes, Runcorn etc, so whilst there may be a need for dementia care in general, is it essential for it to be positioned on this particular site?

A quick look at the info on the Council web-site seems to indicate that over the last 3 - 4 months there have been around 60 dementia care beds available for use within a fairly close radius of this site.

This site is not on a main road and therefore it is not particulalry accessible using public transport (I believe there is a fairly infrequent bus service to the area); and so other than for visitors from the very close surrounding area, it will mean every visit being made by car.

The applicant seems to be hinging things on the business case for the new unit and existing care home combined a little too much for very special circumstances to apply

chunkymunky wrote:

the dr who wrote:
its a ridicules comment to say move if you don't like it, if someone wanted to build a prison or a factory next door to you would you object, or would you just move, I think I know the answer to that, this NIMBY thing is just a way of trying to insult people who have the right to object. And to be clear I don't live on or near the estate, but there is areas nearby that can be used, as no doubt the staff will not be coming from that area anyway they will be travelling. there is a care home there now and people accept it they just don't think its appropriate to build over green belt land, what about the area of land at the bottom of stocks lane its 5 mins away and just sitting derelict

nah......i dont need to worry about that, i have houses either side of me!!!

you have lost me ? I have houses either side of me as I am sure many people have.

I am with the local residents on this one Jane Bradbury is not a local resident so how she can comment is beyond me. The green belt must be protected there are several care homes locally with lots of available beds so how they can say there is a real need is beyond me. The site is not the right one for an extension of 30 beds. This is purely a big company looking to make lots of money.

Perhaps it would be better to use the comments at the planning consent hearing that is if the public are allowed to speak, I am sure that someone will tell us the correct procedure considering most of you are against it, let your actions speak louder than your words.

I live close to the current care home. There is a regular bus service - every half an hour for people visiting or travelling to work.
The increase in traffic would not I think, be detrimental to the area, the current access to and exit from the site is quite dangerous being on a bend. A new car park would be safer.
As for the issue of an extended care home for sufferers of dementia, I personally think the proposal should be passed. Dementia seems to be on the increase, for whatever reason and sufferers need consistent, quality, round the clock care. Families need to know that their loved ones are safe and cared for. Caring for an elderly parent or relative with such an illness, in addition to bringing up a family and juggling a job - if you are lucky enough to have one- is extremely hard work; and both physically and emotionally draining. I know people used to look after their own in the past, but times change as do lifestyles. If a purpose built, safe facility for sufferers of dementia can be provided, be it near my home or not; I have no objection.
Who knows, 40 years on I may still have my memory, there again I may not. I just hope that there will be someone to look after me!

I am a local resident of PENKETH and I understand that the elderley and the vunerable is a upsetting subject but we have to judge this on its merits (PLANNING MERITS) nothing else and as you are a Local Resident you will be aware of a site on stocks lane that was owned by WBC that has been demolished and will be replaced in the future with social housing as there wasn't a need for it in the area. There is also a home on lovely lane which is less than 2 miles from this home and has gone into bankruptcy due to a lack of need and is currently on the market for sale and has been for 4 months with No Buyers so proves a lack of need, there is also another site for sale opposite the butchers arms that has been for sale since 2010 for a 64 bed dementia home and is still for sale hence NO NEED! There are also other available beds in homes within close proximity to the three elms and if there is such a need why are they still available which also rules out the need. As we can clearly see there is NO NEED for this large development in the green belt why should it be even considered when the officers have recomended a REFUSAL as they can not find a need either.

Mr Enviroment wrote:
I am a local resident of PENKETH and I understand that the elderley and the vunerable is a upsetting subject but we have to judge this on its merits (PLANNING MERITS) nothing else and as you are a Local Resident you will be aware of a site on stocks lane that was owned by WBC that has been demolished and will be replaced in the future with social housing as there wasn't a need for it in the area. There is also a home on lovely lane which is less than 2 miles from this home and has gone into bankruptcy due to a lack of need and is currently on the market for sale and has been for 4 months with No Buyers so proves a lack of need, there is also another site for sale opposite the butchers arms that has been for sale since 2010 for a 64 bed dementia home and is still for sale hence NO NEED! There are also other available beds in homes within close proximity to the three elms and if there is such a need why are they still available which also rules out the need. As we can clearly see there is NO NEED for this large development in the green belt why should it be even considered when the officers have recomended a REFUSAL as they can not find a need either.

I believe that the properties and land you have suggested are no longer viable or the people that had run then couldn't or can't afford the upkeep or have no room for reordering the premisses for the very specific tasks for looking after and offering serious attention for people with dementia weather they are elderly or not. The current owners of the Three Elms obviously have the ware-with-all to adequately provide a first class institution for the care, well-being and safety of these very vulnerable people with dementia and a great support for their caring relatives. I still have not seen any proof and not wholly convinced that this is actually a green field. I am almost sure that it has been used for domestic and commercial use in the past. I think it may be on the edge of or abutting green belt land. I don't see that there is any problem that requires a refusal of this request. But I realise that my opinion will not count for anything in the process and neither will yours unless you happen to present it fully and factually documented to the planning committee.

icequeen1978 wrote:
I live close to the current care home. There is a regular bus service - every half an hour for people visiting or travelling to work.
The increase in traffic would not I think, be detrimental to the area, the current access to and exit from the site is quite dangerous being on a bend. A new car park would be safer.
As for the issue of an extended care home for sufferers of dementia, I personally think the proposal should be passed. Dementia seems to be on the increase, for whatever reason and sufferers need consistent, quality, round the clock care. Families need to know that their loved ones are safe and cared for. Caring for an elderly parent or relative with such an illness, in addition to bringing up a family and juggling a job - if you are lucky enough to have one- is extremely hard work; and both physically and emotionally draining. I know people used to look after their own in the past, but times change as do lifestyles. If a purpose built, safe facility for sufferers of dementia can be provided, be it near my home or not; I have no objection.
Who knows, 40 years on I may still have my memory, there again I may not. I just hope that there will be someone to look after me!

Well said, and thank you for adding further FACTS to the debate. It would be worth writing to The Three Elms with your considered and wise comments. I am sure that they would most certainly appreciate it. Please write if you are able and care enough to do so.

Mr Enviroment wrote:
I am a local resident of PENKETH and I understand that the elderley and the vunerable is a upsetting subject but we have to judge this on its merits (PLANNING MERITS) nothing else and as you are a Local Resident you will be aware of a site on stocks lane that was owned by WBC that has been demolished and will be replaced in the future with social housing as there wasn't a need for it in the area. There is also a home on lovely lane which is less than 2 miles from this home and has gone into bankruptcy due to a lack of need and is currently on the market for sale and has been for 4 months with No Buyers so proves a lack of need, there is also another site for sale opposite the butchers arms that has been for sale since 2010 for a 64 bed dementia home and is still for sale hence NO NEED! There are also other available beds in homes within close proximity to the three elms and if there is such a need why are they still available which also rules out the need. As we can clearly see there is NO NEED for this large development in the green belt why should it be even considered when the officers have recomended a REFUSAL as they can not find a need either.

the care home on lovely lane was closed due to the company be completely inept, and failing to take care of the residents so its not due to lack of need

The holy bush on lovely lane has been up for sale for only £295k for the past 6 months and still as yet not sold so surely if their was a real need a care home would have whipped this property up as the three elms are looking to spend 2 million whats £295k to a care home. Also the reason why the care home shut down was because they lost the government funding as they said there was no need for the home.

It seems to me this application is not about care but a back door application to get Residential Planning in the Green Belt! My concern with this application is that if this outrageous application was to get approved this will open the doors to developers obtaining planning in our beautiful countryside. Its surprising the lengths people will go to for money in the society we live in today.

Music_Man wrote:
The holy bush on lovely lane has been up for sale for only £295k for the past 6 months and still as yet not sold so surely if their was a real need a care home would have whipped this property up as the three elms are looking to spend 2 million whats £295k to a care home. Also the reason why the care home shut down was because they lost the government funding as they said there was no need for the home.

size is everything!!!

Mr Enviroment wrote:
It seems to me this application is not about care but a back door application to get Residential Planning in the Green Belt! My concern with this application is that if this outrageous application was to get approved this will open the doors to developers obtaining planning in our beautiful countryside. Its surprising the lengths people will go to for money in the society we live in today.

that looks like a typical comment of a NIMBY Countryside in deed, no part of penketh is countryside. its just areas of greenbelt, as was most of the country at one point including the houses you all live in don't forget.

"size is everything!!!”

Isn't it about quality and not quantity especially in this circumstance.

not really no its a balance for anyone who provides care to get a profit to provide good care you cant do one without the other. unless you know a way of getting something for nothing

" not really no its a balance for anyone who provides care to get a profit"

So what your saying is that in effect we should demolish a greenbelt area with tree's, wildlife, views, piece and quiet, for somebody to make a profit?.

I dont think we can call the Nimbys, i have seen the plans on the council website and the building will be a monstrosity. People pay a premium to live on Tannery Lane, Station Road, Roeburn Way for the green belt and views. Properties on Tannery Lane/Station Road sell for between 300k to 1.5 million because of the location. The fact there is more suitable locations proves this shouldnt have to be done at this home. I have a close friend who's mum suffers with dementia and when they were looking in October at homes everyone had beds available.

If we go along with some of theses views we will not be left green fields or bridal ways etc for people to enjoy. Why not build on parks as these or green. But lets not forget the green belt does not just look nice but provides natural boundaries between the sprawling towns . All that to one side I find it quite concerning that any development should be allowed on green belt especially if the government relax planning laws for change of use, opening such developments to property developers. Lets not forget the comments above clearly stating that such homes have closed down in warrington due to lack use and many homes have available beds. There is also sites that already have planning on brown field. All this considered why build on the green belt. This is a sensitive area and we want to be seen to do the right thing but lets not get sucked in and look at the facts. Its Green Belt
There is no need
There are more suitable sites within a couple of miles.
Relaxed planning ease change of use.
Planning officers recommend refusal
200 local residents object.

I know this area very well having lived all my life in Warrington and regularly walk my poodles in the area. If the proposed plans are in an area of protected green belt then it MUST stay that way.
There must be numerous brown field sites available for this type of care.

Mr Enviroment wrote:
It seems to me this application is not about care but a back door application to get Residential Planning in the Green Belt! My concern with this application is that if this outrageous application was to get approved this will open the doors to developers obtaining planning in our beautiful countryside. Its surprising the lengths people will go to for money in the society we live in today.

Yes, Mr Enviroment, the residents of Risley, Great Sankey, Padgate Birchwood, Cinnamon Brow and Woolston, Appleton, Stretton, and some areas in the Warrington Town Centre would also have protested in the same way, but it didn't stop the additional development of those areas from continuing unabated. A house is only worth what somebody else will pay for it and house prices will often fluctuate with the prevailing economic and environmental factors taken into consideration and more commonly described as progress.

Music_Man wrote:
" not really no its a balance for anyone who provides care to get a profit"

So what your saying is that in effect we should demolish a greenbelt area with tree's, wildlife, views, piece and quiet, for somebody to make a profit?.

I don't recall saying or suggesting any such thing, I said it needs to be a viable home so you wouldn't have 4 residents and then try to run it you will need at least 8 staff over 24 hours.

if your a resident of the area look across the fields and you will see a massive power station. pumping out all sorts of crap and a load of factory units across the other side.

so lets not pretend you all live in the country.

The fact is the land to be developed is legally classified as Greenbelt, no one is suggesting it is amazing countryside, it is surrounded by trees, farming land, public footpaths and fields with animals grazing ! This is fact .
The claims on need for Dementia beds in the area is purely based on projections on future needs, to suggest that we currently have a shortage is not true. Most Dementia cases can for a long while be supported and cared for at home without the upset and disruption of being dragged from the family home. To suggest that facilities cannot be found elsewhere in the area is not true, the priory facility past fiddlers ferry is empty and available?.
My father passed away at home last year aged 67 after several years of early stage dementia issues so I do know that services and spaces are readily available, and I have lived through a horrible way of losing a loved one.
The application is all about a private company wanting to maximize the value of a site , not about care, or the need of residents it is about expanding facilities to increase profit.
The argument against is all about ,Greenbelt , with greenbelt any development of it should be 100% essential, not about the increased profit of private companies, I will withdraw my objection if the home is to be run as a not for profit CIC ?
As for comments on ‘Nimbys, nimbys’ Any argument dependent on name calling really is baseless, unpleasant and has no place on here.
SAC – has not seen any facts that the site is actually Greenfield !!! How sad and amazing what you do not find when you do not look, well actually it is without doubt 100% GREENFIELD hence the planning problems! Have you actually read the application ?
Comments on bus services ignore several key facts , one the buses do not run 24 hours a day and will not be running when evening shifts start or morning shifts begin , also 90% of people do not use buses , few would actually use the bus.
Bill Paddington , your comments are sadly rude and unhelpful.
Chunky munky, actually we have no shortage of spaces and ‘nimby’? not a very good argument.
As for Clr Geoff Settle, I suggest you go to Specsavers, then learn to read an os map, when you have done that you will see that the site is clearly Greenfield , after which please resign as your comments show both a lack of attention to detail and a lack of work , no wonder the country is in such a mess when elected officials are so unable to reach an obvious and simply decision, rather drag matters out and waste resources rather than actually make a decision. the site is greenbelt and no exceptional circumstances exist with the application as such it must be rejected without further resources being wasted.

Dr Who.... You sound like someone I've heard say the exact comments. From at the beginning of the thread you seemed to think the site was not required for the area and now you are getting offensive towards people who also don't think it is required. Slating the area is not the argument here.

I am saying that there is space around Warrington and penketh to put it yes I have never said I am in favour of it, but people trying to say they live in the countryside when they don't annoys me is all, people around that area have moaned about things all there lives, Anglia Canners when it was there, also the Tannery when it was there. and now its something else to direct there attention at.

I agree Penketh is hardly in the heart of the countryside, semi rural may be slightly closer. The power station looms over us, the sheep and hens now on Tannery Lane are moaned about - a common sight in the countryside if you live in it- and as for houses going for 300k - 1.5m I wish they were. I'd sell mine and retire.!!!

paulmor wrote:
The fact is the land to be developed is legally classified as Greenbelt, no one is suggesting it is amazing countryside, it is surrounded by trees, farming land, public footpaths and fields with animals grazing ! This is fact .
The claims on need for Dementia beds in the area is purely based on projections on future needs, to suggest that we currently have a shortage is not true. Most Dementia cases can for a long while be supported and cared for at home without the upset and disruption of being dragged from the family home. To suggest that facilities cannot be found elsewhere in the area is not true, the priory facility past fiddlers ferry is empty and available?.
My father passed away at home last year aged 67 after several years of early stage dementia issues so I do know that services and spaces are readily available, and I have lived through a horrible way of losing a loved one.
The application is all about a private company wanting to maximize the value of a site , not about care, or the need of residents it is about expanding facilities to increase profit.
The argument against is all about ,Greenbelt , with greenbelt any development of it should be 100% essential, not about the increased profit of private companies, I will withdraw my objection if the home is to be run as a not for profit CIC ?
As for comments on ‘Nimbys, nimbys’ Any argument dependent on name calling really is baseless, unpleasant and has no place on here.
SAC – has not seen any facts that the site is actually Greenfield !!! How sad and amazing what you do not find when you do not look, well actually it is without doubt 100% GREENFIELD hence the planning problems! Have you actually read the application ?
Comments on bus services ignore several key facts , one the buses do not run 24 hours a day and will not be running when evening shifts start or morning shifts begin , also 90% of people do not use buses , few would actually use the bus.
Bill Paddington , your comments are sadly rude and unhelpful.
Chunky munky, actually we have no shortage of spaces and ‘nimby’? not a very good argument.
As for Clr Geoff Settle, I suggest you go to Specsavers, then learn to read an os map, when you have done that you will see that the site is clearly Greenfield , after which please resign as your comments show both a lack of attention to detail and a lack of work , no wonder the country is in such a mess when elected officials are so unable to reach an obvious and simply decision, rather drag matters out and waste resources rather than actually make a decision. the site is greenbelt and no exceptional circumstances exist with the application as such it must be rejected without further resources being wasted.

OK then so now please tell us your co-commentators, exactly and in as few words as possible what you are positively doing about these issues! I would be interested to read that here on this site.

For the benefit of SAC who it would appear has not read my last post or is perhaps a shareholder in Three Elms and as such not interested in facts that do not help the drive for profit which is the only motive for the application.
The only issue is a proposed development on Greenbelt.

I do not need to do anything about Dementia care in the area as we do not have any shortages of beds or facilities in the area.
Furthermore I find the whole debate offensive, the real discussion should be if it is acceptable that Private companies strive to profit from such facilities, which could be run better and at much reduced cost to taxpayers and residents, if local authorities ran facilities rather than refusing to take responsibility. These Companies make significant profits and constantly develop land around properties to enhance property value.

Three elms was a nice large house with stunning gardens until three elms built an ugly extension and ripped out gardens leaving waste land that makes the whole site look like brownfield (to quote a councillor from a different ward that has no interest in legal facts).

Sadly SAC I can not do anything about the issue of greedy profit driven Private business’s that seek to ignore planning rules in the relentless pursuit of profit, other object and write on such places as this that again people are being conned by scare stories and half-truths. The facts are
The site is Greenbelt
We have no dementia facility shortage
The area has a lot of brownfield sites available that can easily be developed when we do have the need for further facilities.
Two miles from three elms the priory group have an empty facility that is larger than three elms
Profit is the sole motive of three elms
To quote RAFA the facts speak for themselves which is why three elms and SAC do not quote any

paulmor's comments are demonstrating that they lack the background knowledge to sustain and underpin his theories about the economics of providing such a specialist facility. In my considered opinion to merely think something is wrong doesn't mean that it is wrong, like wise to think something is right doesn't make it right either! The Company that provide this facility are clearly abiding by the planning process and will undoubtedly abide by the final decision of the Local Authority Planning Committee, where paulmor's will be further scrutinised if they are clearly presented with them in a factually documented form.

Once again SAC offers nothing, no facts or arguments just sticks fingers in ears and goes la la la very loudly and they refuse to listen to an opinion they do not agree with.
SAC moves on very other pro supporters Nimby argument, to now insult me by calling me an idiot (saying someone lacks knowledge is Politician speak for you’re an idiot).
Well SAC I do know what I am talking about, you refuse to accept anyone who disagrees with you, then you make a lot of noise that shows a complete lack of substance to your comments.
Given that the council planners have repeatedly recommended the refusal of the companies various applications’ , and the fact that the companies keeps withdrawing or changing the application, shows that the Company does not abide by decisions, it merely seeks loopholes or sympathetic ears on council in order to try to by-pass the rules.

paulmor I note with interest that you label yourself with a title that your are living up to. My previous comment has so obviously either hit a raw nerve with you or you have totally misunderstood my benevolent suggestion. I would also reassure you and others that I have read your extensive and repeated comments. Yes I have stated that you that from my observation of your previous comments suggested that you lack some knowledge which I think would improve your discussion and debating skills. By saying the same thing over and over, and over again will no convince any right minded person to change their mind. I reiterate further that the company that runs The Three Elms is acting within the Planning process and adjusting their plans in committee. Again I make the very simple suggestion to direct your objections to the Planning Committee in a factual documented form for them to scrutinise them. The whole issue might just be refused from what you have said. It is completely fruitless to sound off here if it is not used as a precursor to what you may present to the Committee directly.

LOL ! Benevolent suggestion ! if only .
SAC clearly you are either a Politician or being paid by the home to counter anything that is not supportive of the application. SAC to debate you have to say something, you provide no facts or information to the discussion all you do is poo poo others and attempt to Patronize. You actually asked icequeen to write if they are able !!
You clearly have no knowledge that your paymasters will allow you to share with us, just a desire for the plans to be passed. Strangely I do not need any tips from you on what to do , I have written directly with my views please wear a badge on the 24th with SAC on it so that I can say hello. Perhaps for democracy whilst you scrutinize the debate you could take a watching brief and stop steering people or twisting comments ?

Obviously you are not aiming to be fair or just on this issue and appear blind or any possible reasoning. You are still using repeated and further repeated arguments to bash though the idea that you know it, therefore it must be true attitude. You are not going to agree with me on anything so why bother responding to my comments? You appear to be wasting your own time on this site until you gain some true and factual understanding of the issues with regard to this company obtaining the possible planning consent for this extinction. No need for you to ware a badge on the 24th. I'll just play where's Wally while waiting for the permission to be granted including any possible constraints.

White Swan wrote:
I dont think we can call the Nimbys, i have seen the plans on the council website and the building will be a monstrosity. People pay a premium to live on Tannery Lane, Station Road, Roeburn Way for the green belt and views. Properties on Tannery Lane/Station Road sell for between 300k to 1.5 million because of the location. The fact there is more suitable locations proves this shouldnt have to be done at this home. I have a close friend who's mum suffers with dementia and when they were looking in October at homes everyone had beds available.

People pay a premium to live on Tannery Lane, Station Road, Roeburn Way for the green belt and views of what the power station and a golf driving range.

You will be there on your own on the 24th well maybe not alone but not with the three elms application. Jayne I would expect you to have known that.

I obviously have a date with paulmor on that day and I'm not called Jayne !!!