Peel hall planning meeting - as it happened

Updated 11:55am Friday 8th March 2013 in News

This live event has finished

Latest

  • Developers bid to build 150 homes turned down
  • Unanimous refusal from the committee
  • Hundreds of residents turn out to forcefully put their case
  • Planning public inquiry to be held next

7:39pm

So that's it from Peel Hall tonight. Thanks for getting involved.

7:37pm

7:32pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Gorsedd says

"Clr Les Hoyle says it is premature. Clr Bob Barr says great shame developers didn't come to defend. He says council is united against the application. He says the developers Satnam are unscrupulous. Unfortunate that integrity of planners been questioned. he says
the developers are enemies, not party and not council officers. swipe at Helen Jones MP, although he doesn't name" - Helen Jones MP is the last person for anyone on or in the Council to take a swipe at. She had her eye on this ball all the time, which is more than can be said of those in or on this council. Integrity and trust have to be earned not assumed as an inalienable right.

7:20pm

A public inquiry is likely to take place later this year where the real battle will be. A government planning inspector will hear evidence and decide if the application can be approved. More legal arguments could then follow. That is for the future though. Tonight has been a major victory for the hundreds of campaigners and the many residents living near to the affected site. 

7:15pm

All councillors vote to refuse, to cheers, whistles and applause. Application is turned down. Question now turns to what happens next?

7:14pm

Clr Higgins moves refusal. Clr Graham Friend seconds

7:13pm

7:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Karlar says

What went wrong? This is no tiresome oversight. Why did this farcical situation have to happen this way? Explanations please and don't tell us lessons have been learned, because frankly we all tired of that excuse in this borough.

7:13pm

Offer of free football pitch can't turn 'sow's ear into silk purse' says Clr Laurence Murphy

7:11pm

Clr Jeff Richards says residents work is to be admired. And jokes that Clr Higgins has taken away his thunder. He is 'famous' for it!

7:10pm

Clr Les Hoyle says it is premature. Clr Bob Barr says great shame developers didn't come to defend. He says council is united against the application. He says the developers Satnam are unscrupulous. Unfortunate that integrity of planners been questioned. he says 

The developers are enemies, not party and not council officers. Swipe at Helen Jones MP, although he doesn't name her

7:06pm

 

Clr Tony Higgins says miserable application and moves it is rejected. he says this is the fight of residents and should be no showboating from councillors

7:04pm

No speaker for developer. No surprise from audience at Parr Hall

7:03pm

7:03pm Thu 7 Mar 13

old-codger says

It is clear to eveybody that this development is not wanted by anybody who lives in this and the surrounding area,s.
Just what part of the word NO dont these developers understand, Is it the N or is it the O, Maybe they just can not put the two letters together to make a word,
We dont want you or your plans, Go forth and multiply.

7:03pm

He says water voles, hedgehogs and a variety of birds live on the land. Would be disrupted. Shop at least a 15 minute walk and schools in area already busy

7:01pm

Geoff Settle is last speaker. Lived in area for more than 30 years.

Clr Geoff Settle

6:59pm

Houghton Green resident Margaret Steen says Mill Lane too narrow and no pavements. Would be dangerous for residents. Another big cheer in the room. She is greeted with big cheers

6:57pm

Lots of support shown for all the speakers, posters being held up to protest.

6:53pm

Ste Dodd says floodlights from nearby new football pitches planned would hit community living around Grasmere.

He has set up Facebook pages to fight the plans.

Here is a picture of a heron on the site.

Peel Hall.JPG

 

 

6:49pm

Resident Deborah Jackson says Mill Lane is not suitable and developer has ignored the dangers to residents. traffic would increase by almost 900 car trips per day

6:47pm

Good facts from Houghton Green resident Charles Dunbar. Nearest station more than 2.5k away, bus stop almost 1k, post office 2k and library 2k. He gets biggest cheer of the night

6:44pm

Resident Carol Rowlands says approval would be dangerous precedent for developments on other green fields in Warrington

6:41pm

He says traffic problems will stretch as far as Croft and Winwick

6:38pm

Big round of applause for John. Now Billy Lines-Rowlands. Getting the double barrel names out of the way first.

6:36pm

Clr John Kerr-Brown says plans are tip of the iceberg and could lead to an extra 1500 homes in the future.

6:33pm

Geoff settle, ward member, steps down so he can speak against the plans

 

6:32pm

And he explains Peel Hall will be first up.

 

6:30pm

Clr Tony McCarthy, LAB Woolston, is in the chair for the meeting as we start the introductions.

6:28pm

Peel hall is not the only application to be discussed by councillors tonight. Also on the agenda is plans for a supermarket at the former fordton Leisure Centre, a care home extension in Penketh and houses on a former scrap yard in Bewsey

6:26pm

u

6:25pm

A large crowd is in attendance for the meeting. More than 100 so far. Hopefully awful traffic  is not putting many people off

6:08pm

Welcome to our coverage of the Peel Hall application. You can get involved by commenting below or tweeting with the #peelhall. Meeting due to start at 6.30

Comments(28)

old-codger says...
7:03pm Thu 7 Mar 13

It is clear to eveybody that this development is not wanted by anybody who lives in this and the surrounding area,s.
Just what part of the word NO dont these developers understand, Is it the N or is it the O, Maybe they just can not put the two letters together to make a word,
We dont want you or your plans, Go forth and multiply.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
7:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13

What went wrong? This is no tiresome oversight. Why did this farcical situation have to happen this way? Explanations please and don't tell us lessons have been learned, because frankly we all tired of that excuse in this borough.

Report this post »

Gorsedd says...
7:32pm Thu 7 Mar 13

"Clr Les Hoyle says it is premature. Clr Bob Barr says great shame developers didn't come to defend. He says council is united against the application. He says the developers Satnam are unscrupulous. Unfortunate that integrity of planners been questioned. he says
the developers are enemies, not party and not council officers. swipe at Helen Jones MP, although he doesn't name" - Helen Jones MP is the last person for anyone on or in the Council to take a swipe at. She had her eye on this ball all the time, which is more than can be said of those in or on this council. Integrity and trust have to be earned not assumed as an inalienable right.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
7:45pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Satnam could consider a deal with David Wilson homes and ask them to front the bid as concerns re traffic, pavements, nature and loss of greenfields don't seem as much of a concern when dwh is the applicant, and they certainly are not the enemy of cllr Barr, something even he can remember.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
8:36pm Thu 7 Mar 13

"Clr Bob Barr says it’s a great shame developers didn't come to defend." I cannot believe any sensible person would seriously have expected SATNAM representatives to have willingly put themselves up as targets for this evening's coconut shy. What? And inevitably play the part of the Evil Witch in a meaningless pantomime and be shouted down every few minutes by a crowd whipped up by people who should have acted before now to have prevented tonight’s events? SATNAM were much better engaged in biding time and preparing for the hearing in front of the planning inspector, where this matter will actually be decided. That does not mean SATNAM's proposals are anymore acceptable. They are not, I am firmly behind Geoff Settle and Helen Jones on this. But the significance of this evening's antics will not have escaped most people.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
10:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Why is Bob Barr continuing to defend people in the planning department? Once again they are shown to be either incompetent or corrupt. In either case they need to be dealt with either by being removed or investigated properly. The fact that their 'mistakes' invariably favour developers stinks out the whole of Warrington.

This is the highest profile planning issue in the Borough and yet they have denied the people of Warrington the chance to have the final say about what happens to their land. Questions need to be asked about why this has happened yet again and if necessary call the police to deal with them once and for all.

Somebody else may need to confirm that at least one of the officers dealing with this was also involved in the Marton Close scandal, the records destruction and subsequent cover up. If so, why is this person even still in a job?

Report this post »

http://www.facebook.com/groups/127334547418004/ says...
12:01am Fri 8 Mar 13

Ste Dodd had more to say than

Ste Dodd says floodlights from nearby new football pitches planned would hit community living around Grasmere.

STE DODD SAID

Councillors, my name is Ste Dodd, I live in Grasmere Avenue and I will be impacted by the proposed development of the sports pitches as detailed in the planning application for PEEL HALL

Firstly, the playing fields are outside of the district where the PEEL HALL development is proposed and is no way linked or connected to this housing development.

The floodlights will cause light pollution to my community, and as the local council are currently upgrading street lights with down-lighters (to reduce light pollution), how can the floodlights be acceptable?

There will be an increase in the volume of traffic visiting the playing fields, along with associated noise both at weekends and late into the evening, causing disruption to my community.

At an event at the ORFORD HUB, the developer canvassed visitors to see if they supported the sports field plan. They were noted as locals but 25% of them live in Scotland, Surrey, Blackpool and many other towns and cities outside of Warrington?

This is reported to be a £1M plus investment, and I doubt much of this money will be invested in Warrington people or businesses.

If the application is approved, how will the Council pay the ongoing maintenance costs in this economic climate?
Dave Cotterill (WBC) has put on record and I quote “The council is facing significant revenue pressures and the creation of new or enhanced facilities without additional ongoing funding will make this a whole lot worse”

Why can’t he create this facility on his own land?
Under the TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, S106 states he can put something back that he has taken out, but he has not taken anything out.
WHY is the developer proposing to develop OUR playing fields in OUR community? It’s not wanted. It’s not his land, it’s OUR land!

It’s been said that the proposal of football pitches on radley common is more for the benefit of winwick football club if so and they want to play outside of their district i direct both satnam and winwick football club back to the orford hub where 32 million has been spent for such puposes.more likely nearer and safer to travel to.

We have a vibrant community hub already which is used every day and at weekends, by all ages within our community. Further development is NOT NEEDED. The developer has never asked US what we want, so we can tell him now, WE DON’T WANT IT! It seems like a bribe to us, WE DON’T ACCEPT IT
I ask on behalf of myself and my community that this application be refused and I thank the Committee for their time

Report this post »

Billy Porter says...
12:49am Fri 8 Mar 13

Yeah, good performance tonight, Ste.

Still a war to fight, but that's a battle won about where it's going to be fought.



Oh, it's at the appeal anyway.

And, heh, somebody got their Sunday name.

Report this post »

Out of Warrington says...
9:50am Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
Why is Bob Barr continuing to defend people in the planning department? Once again they are shown to be either incompetent or corrupt. In either case they need to be dealt with either by being removed or investigated properly. The fact that their 'mistakes' invariably favour developers stinks out the whole of Warrington.

This is the highest profile planning issue in the Borough and yet they have denied the people of Warrington the chance to have the final say about what happens to their land. Questions need to be asked about why this has happened yet again and if necessary call the police to deal with them once and for all.

Somebody else may need to confirm that at least one of the officers dealing with this was also involved in the Marton Close scandal, the records destruction and subsequent cover up. If so, why is this person even still in a job?
Predictable from you.

I assume that you have evidence to back up your "corrupt" claim?

Report this post »

grey_man says...
10:11am Fri 8 Mar 13

I never said they were corrupt.

Read it again.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
10:18am Fri 8 Mar 13

@ Councillors

Why was Andy Farrall not at the meeting?

Report this post »

Dustin says...
11:23am Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man said "Somebody else may need to confirm that at least one of the officers dealing with this was also involved in the Marton Close scandal, the records destruction and subsequent cover up. If so, why is this person even still in a job?" - Yes, more than one and you are spot on.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
12:28pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Dustin

If that's the case then whatever Bob Barr says, these people in the planning department ARE part of the problem. If we cannot trust them to do their jobs with competence, professionalism or perhaps even probity, why are they involved at all?

Report this post »

Out of Warrington says...
2:15pm Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
I never said they were corrupt.

Read it again.
"Once again they are shown to be either incompetent or corrupt"

errrrrrr............
..

Report this post »

grey_man says...
2:52pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Yes. I said they were either incompetent or corrupt. Either their constant screw ups are the result of the fact they can't do their jobs or they are failing on purpose.

Is it the word 'or' that's confusing you?

Report this post »

Out of Warrington says...
3:07pm Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
Yes. I said they were either incompetent or corrupt. Either their constant screw ups are the result of the fact they can't do their jobs or they are failing on purpose.

Is it the word 'or' that's confusing you?
As I thought, you have no evidence to back your allegations.

I do understand the meaning of the word 'or', I also understand the meaning of the word sanctimonious, which when I looked it up in the dictionary said -"see grey_man". ;~)

Report this post »

grey_man says...
3:13pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Here's a little thought experiment for you. If I were a company director and destroyed all of my business's financial records but kept submitting accounts for four years then told HMRC I'd done it all to save space in spite of the fact they had written to me on several occasions to remind me of my legal obligations, what would they conclude?

Report this post »

Out of Warrington says...
5:02pm Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
Here's a little thought experiment for you. If I were a company director and destroyed all of my business's financial records but kept submitting accounts for four years then told HMRC I'd done it all to save space in spite of the fact they had written to me on several occasions to remind me of my legal obligations, what would they conclude?
Why don't you get yourself a proper hobby?

Report this post »

Karlar says...
5:08pm Fri 8 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
Dustin

If that's the case then whatever Bob Barr says, these people in the planning department ARE part of the problem. If we cannot trust them to do their jobs with competence, professionalism or perhaps even probity, why are they involved at all?
It's called the Nicholson Defence. In other words, "we've made a pig’s ear of doing what you asked us to and in so doing created an unholy, unlawful mess, but we're the only ones to get you through it to the next crisis."
I gave up wondering what's behind official or party utterances on planning long ago. When the obvious is staring them in the face they find every excuse for not dealing with it. Well absent of any integrity anyway.
First they refused to accept there were problems with a department they all oversaw at one time. Later they responded to complainants with counter accusations of 'conspiracy theorists'. Eventually after the LGO's report that spelled it out explicitly and simply they accepted there were problems with the planners. Some went so far as to second a motion calling on this administration to acknowledge who was at fault for the destruction of records. Now even though there have been no improvements in that service we are expected to believe it is unfortunate the integrity of those involved in planning is being questioned. People could be forgiven if they started to question the integrity other people in WBC as also.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
6:29pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Out of Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
Here's a little thought experiment for you. If I were a company director and destroyed all of my business's financial records but kept submitting accounts for four years then told HMRC I'd done it all to save space in spite of the fact they had written to me on several occasions to remind me of my legal obligations, what would they conclude?
Why don't you get yourself a proper hobby?
No answer then?

Actually I think we all know the answer and that's the problem. You know it too.

Report this post »

toffeeman_4ever says...
12:07am Sat 9 Mar 13

As a resident who will suffer WHEN this is green lighted, cos lets not get off the subject but the ignorance of SATNAM to not bother defending their corner, It is very predictable that the end result will be to the detriment of people living in this area closeby. SATNAM will get what they want cos CONDEM Government will shaft us all!!! Remember what you all voted for......oh yes, we didnt!!!!

Report this post »

Karlar says...
11:59am Sat 9 Mar 13

toffeeman_4ever wrote:
As a resident who will suffer WHEN this is green lighted, cos lets not get off the subject but the ignorance of SATNAM to not bother defending their corner, It is very predictable that the end result will be to the detriment of people living in this area closeby. SATNAM will get what they want cos CONDEM Government will shaft us all!!! Remember what you all voted for......oh yes, we didnt!!!!
I sympathize with and share your concerns. But you will find local planners and politicians, not those in the parliament, will have had a far greater influence on what eventually happens with this proposed scheme however it is decided. As usual our lot will cast around blaming others while trying to wash their hands of any responsibility, if things go wrong for the residents. But we have heard it all so many times before, their excuses for incompetence or worse, have now lost all connection with reality. I sincerely hope the outcome is what the residents have campaigned for.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
7:38am Mon 11 Mar 13

And here's one more problem with the planning system in England. Councillors selling themselves as 'consultants' to developers.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/9
921344/Councillors-f
or-hire-who-give-fir
ms-planning-advice.h
tml

Let's see who the first one is in Warrington to get involved in this shameful business.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
11:06am Tue 12 Mar 13

grey_man wrote:
And here's one more problem with the planning system in England. Councillors selling themselves as 'consultants' to developers.

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/news/uknews/9

921344/Councillors-f

or-hire-who-give-fir

ms-planning-advice.h

tml

Let's see who the first one is in Warrington to get involved in this shameful business.
A further extension of that scenario is reported as "Moonlighting planning officers help builders exploit 'vulnerable’ councils"...see today's Daily Telegraph. I can't see that being a problem here can you?

Report this post »

grey_man says...
11:51am Tue 12 Mar 13

It does further undermine Bob Barr's suggestion that councillors and planning officers aren't 'the enemy'. Even before we read such stuff, it's apparent that at WBC some of them are.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
12:09pm Tue 12 Mar 13

I would qualify it to read "some councillors and some officers involved in planning". But there is little doubt we do seem to have more than our fair share of trend setters, and some are still around. Whether they are still plying their trade remains to be seen.

Report this post »

Dustin says...
4:55pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Here's another expose on planning as is not meant to be administered.
'Cut down trees before they can object': Council planning officers offer 'consultancy services' to help developers win applications
Officials paid thousands to find 'vulnerable' areas for developers to target
One councillor suggests doing 'x,y and z' before permission is granted
This includes cutting down trees before neighbours bring protection orders
Government says that council officers involved risk breaking the law
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2292006/Cut-trees-ob
ject-Council-plannin
g-officers-offer-con
sultancy-services-he
lp-developers-win-ap
plications.html#ixzz
2NLTC1zeS
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Report this post »

Billy Porter says...
12:24am Wed 13 Mar 13

Heh, funny that, the first thing Satnam did on acquiring the land was to cut all the trees down.

It wasn't so he could plant spuds.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree