Clay pigeon shooting club in Rixton given green light

Residents protest outside Town Hall against plans

Residents protest outside Town Hall against plans

First published in News
Last updated

A CLAY pigeon shooting club in Rixton has won its appeal to build the facilities near to Risley Moss.

Prospect Target Club's application had originally been denied by Warrington Borough Council, over claims it could affect nearby birdlife.

Residents, councillors and experts all lobbied the committee, arguing the development would hit the green belt and wildlife.

Concerns were also raised over noise pollution.

The plans were put to a planning inquiry, where inspector Martin Joyce was tasked with scrutinising the blueprints and making a final decision on the matter.

Geoff Settle said “Speaking on behalf of the Warrington Nature Conservation Forum I can say that we are bitterly disappointed with the outcome.

“The shooting club has now been given the green light to go ahead and inflict noise on the local community and wildlife.

“We will continue to record data and submit our wildlife sightings, particularly birds on the Red and Amber list bird list, on the Cheshire Local Biological database and monitor any changes.”

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Fri 7 Feb 14

J H Wise says...

I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington
I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington J H Wise
  • Score: 6

12:59pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

I woukd like to thank all those who heped provide data advice etc especially the lay people who spoke passionately and very well many doing so for the first time in their lives at such an appeal. We all did a great deal of research and put many hours into constructing a case. We even had a good go at the technical arguments especially the 2 nuclear engineers. However it was other areas were the appeal came unstuck even though we the report does point to some success in these areas but in the Inspectors eyes and in planning law terms we did not succeed and he found in their favour. The fact that this 3-day turned into a 5 day inquiry followed by a day visit shows how hard the battle was fought. The message for other appeals is that you have to fight and fight hard just like we did against the Pell Hall Planning Inquiry last July - it aint easy and belive me it gets nasty.
I woukd like to thank all those who heped provide data advice etc especially the lay people who spoke passionately and very well many doing so for the first time in their lives at such an appeal. We all did a great deal of research and put many hours into constructing a case. We even had a good go at the technical arguments especially the 2 nuclear engineers. However it was other areas were the appeal came unstuck even though we the report does point to some success in these areas but in the Inspectors eyes and in planning law terms we did not succeed and he found in their favour. The fact that this 3-day turned into a 5 day inquiry followed by a day visit shows how hard the battle was fought. The message for other appeals is that you have to fight and fight hard just like we did against the Pell Hall Planning Inquiry last July - it aint easy and belive me it gets nasty. Geoff Settle
  • Score: 6

1:19pm Fri 7 Feb 14

old-codger says...

Permission is granted by people who don't even live in the area and don't have to suffer as a result of their actions, Well done to Geoff Settle and everyone else who tried to put a stop to this application,
Permission is granted by people who don't even live in the area and don't have to suffer as a result of their actions, Well done to Geoff Settle and everyone else who tried to put a stop to this application, old-codger
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

This was a team made up of residents, local councillors, WNCF members and local farmers - the worrying thing is despite their testimonies it was all down to proveable evidnce that could be scrutinised, the appellants advocate dismissed you if you didn't have letters at the end of your name and your evidnce hadn't been published and verified by people like Natural England. Anyone going into one of the other appeals coming up should take note. I was very proud of the people that I got to know and see them present their evidence.
This was a team made up of residents, local councillors, WNCF members and local farmers - the worrying thing is despite their testimonies it was all down to proveable evidnce that could be scrutinised, the appellants advocate dismissed you if you didn't have letters at the end of your name and your evidnce hadn't been published and verified by people like Natural England. Anyone going into one of the other appeals coming up should take note. I was very proud of the people that I got to know and see them present their evidence. Geoff Settle
  • Score: 4

3:43pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Paul Kennedy says...

J H Wise wrote:
I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington
Regarding your destroyed faith in WBC, Warrington Borough Council did not grant planning permission, indeed they rejected the application. The applicant, Prospect Target Club, appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, and it was their Planning Inspection who granted planning permission against the wishes of Warrington Borough Council.
[quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington[/p][/quote]Regarding your destroyed faith in WBC, Warrington Borough Council did not grant planning permission, indeed they rejected the application. The applicant, Prospect Target Club, appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, and it was their Planning Inspection who granted planning permission against the wishes of Warrington Borough Council. Paul Kennedy
  • Score: 11

3:54pm Fri 7 Feb 14

moleogod says...

i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC
i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC moleogod
  • Score: -3

4:28pm Fri 7 Feb 14

wa1 resident says...

WBC planning committee, of which Cllr Settle is active member, declined the application. The decision to overturn this on appeal has been taken outside of WBC control. The applicant will now claim and duly receive suitable costs from local purse, given that the initial decision by WBC planning committee is now said to have been incorrect, something which often sees WBC planning members approve matters not on their doorstep, especially if it is felt they will likely get passed on appeal anyway.
WBC planning committee, of which Cllr Settle is active member, declined the application. The decision to overturn this on appeal has been taken outside of WBC control. The applicant will now claim and duly receive suitable costs from local purse, given that the initial decision by WBC planning committee is now said to have been incorrect, something which often sees WBC planning members approve matters not on their doorstep, especially if it is felt they will likely get passed on appeal anyway. wa1 resident
  • Score: 3

6:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

J H Wise says...

I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead. J H Wise
  • Score: 4

6:27pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

Paul Kennedy wrote:
J H Wise wrote:
I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington
Regarding your destroyed faith in WBC, Warrington Borough Council did not grant planning permission, indeed they rejected the application. The applicant, Prospect Target Club, appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, and it was their Planning Inspection who granted planning permission against the wishes of Warrington Borough Council.
Thanks Paul an informed voice of reason as always :-)
[quote][p][bold]Paul Kennedy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I am so sorry that the powers that be have allowed this to go ahead, Now, all we have to look forward to instead of peaceful walks in the country with our dogs and children is the rat a tat banging of gunshot, It has totally destroyed my faith in Warrington Council seeing right from wrong, This gun club will cause so much harm to our local wildlife, our pets are already stressed by it, It will only by a matter of time before they apply to extend their hours, so it makes me wonder if it is better to just ignore all laws, apply for planning after the sites are developed will become the norm in Warrington[/p][/quote]Regarding your destroyed faith in WBC, Warrington Borough Council did not grant planning permission, indeed they rejected the application. The applicant, Prospect Target Club, appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, and it was their Planning Inspection who granted planning permission against the wishes of Warrington Borough Council.[/p][/quote]Thanks Paul an informed voice of reason as always :-) Geoff Settle
  • Score: 2

6:28pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

moleogod wrote:
i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC
Can you name names so that I can call for an investigation and scrutinise your evidence?
[quote][p][bold]moleogod[/bold] wrote: i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC[/p][/quote]Can you name names so that I can call for an investigation and scrutinise your evidence? Geoff Settle
  • Score: 1

6:36pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

J H Wise wrote:
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision.
Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.
[quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.[/p][/quote]No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision. Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry. Geoff Settle
  • Score: 1

7:35pm Fri 7 Feb 14

old-codger says...

J H Wise wrote:
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
It does get confusing so I can see how easy it was to make an error JH.
[quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.[/p][/quote]It does get confusing so I can see how easy it was to make an error JH. old-codger
  • Score: 2

7:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

muckerman says...

Great news!!!
Better than shooting real birds. Sounds fun. May give it a go!
Great news!!! Better than shooting real birds. Sounds fun. May give it a go! muckerman
  • Score: 1

8:23pm Fri 7 Feb 14

thomaswalker2014 says...

Might as well be shooting real birds, it's next to a wildlife sanctuary... surely all the birds and wildlife there are not going to stick around. They will be dropping dead from shock and stress. :(
Might as well be shooting real birds, it's next to a wildlife sanctuary... surely all the birds and wildlife there are not going to stick around. They will be dropping dead from shock and stress. :( thomaswalker2014
  • Score: 0

8:31am Sat 8 Feb 14

moleogod says...

moleogod wrote:
i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC
ignore this comment as i am incorrect
[quote][p][bold]moleogod[/bold] wrote: i think some peoples bank accounts need to be looked into. well i think we can see what's going to happen to the arpley landfill if this is anything to go by. a PATHETIC DISPLAY BY WBC[/p][/quote]ignore this comment as i am incorrect moleogod
  • Score: -1

11:32am Sat 8 Feb 14

J H Wise says...

Please can some enlightened person advise which days and what hours will this club be permitted to use their guns.
I have tried to read the documentation, but find it totally bewildering, so would grateful for the information, so that I can alter my times dog walking on Pestfurlong Hill, and advise a friend who,s dog has already run scared and nearly lost its life on the M62. so she can also take care.
Sorry again for my mistake yesterday to all concerned
Please can some enlightened person advise which days and what hours will this club be permitted to use their guns. I have tried to read the documentation, but find it totally bewildering, so would grateful for the information, so that I can alter my times dog walking on Pestfurlong Hill, and advise a friend who,s dog has already run scared and nearly lost its life on the M62. so she can also take care. Sorry again for my mistake yesterday to all concerned J H Wise
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week.
I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week. Geoff Settle
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Sat 8 Feb 14

PageA says...

Geoff Settle wrote:
J H Wise wrote:
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision.
Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.
I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.[/p][/quote]No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision. Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.[/p][/quote]I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done PageA
  • Score: -6

2:15pm Sat 8 Feb 14

J H Wise says...

Geoff Settle wrote:
I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week.
Geoff, thank you, if I can tell you that most Saturdays on the dot of 10.00am the shooting starts, you can understand my upset,, ah well whats done is done, BUT I will be keeping a close ear on the shotgun noises.
We (the dog walkers) would be grateful if you could confirm the times, and who do we tell if we hear them at other times??
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week.[/p][/quote]Geoff, thank you, if I can tell you that most Saturdays on the dot of 10.00am the shooting starts, you can understand my upset,, ah well whats done is done, BUT I will be keeping a close ear on the shotgun noises. We (the dog walkers) would be grateful if you could confirm the times, and who do we tell if we hear them at other times?? J H Wise
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Sat 8 Feb 14

J H Wise says...

Geoff Settle wrote:
I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week.
Geoff, thank you, if I can tell you that most Saturdays on the dot of 10.00am the shooting starts, you can understand my upset,, ah well whats done is done, BUT I will be keeping a close ear on the shotgun noises.
We (the dog walkers) would be grateful if you could confirm the times, and who do we tell if we hear them at other times??
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: I remember that the application was to increase from 28 days/year to 156 i.e. 3 days a week and opening hours from about 10am till 4pm but I'll have to delve into the documentation again. It did specify which three days of the week.[/p][/quote]Geoff, thank you, if I can tell you that most Saturdays on the dot of 10.00am the shooting starts, you can understand my upset,, ah well whats done is done, BUT I will be keeping a close ear on the shotgun noises. We (the dog walkers) would be grateful if you could confirm the times, and who do we tell if we hear them at other times?? J H Wise
  • Score: -1

4:19pm Sat 8 Feb 14

toodlepip1 says...

Who is inspector Martin Joyce? who does he work for? why was the decision left to him?. What qualifications does he have? did he visit the site? how can this open next to a nature reserve? it just doesn't make sense....we need answers.
Who is inspector Martin Joyce? who does he work for? why was the decision left to him?. What qualifications does he have? did he visit the site? how can this open next to a nature reserve? it just doesn't make sense....we need answers. toodlepip1
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

PageA wrote:
Geoff Settle wrote:
J H Wise wrote:
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision.
Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.
I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done
You have to remember that I was there for 5 full days so what do you base your evidence and opinion on. Neither I nor anyone else swore. I went there and gave it my best shot. Their advocate was the one putting us under pressure and asking people to back up what they were saying with verifiable evidence i.e. the academic qualifications; if you didn’t have them then he would disregard and belittle you and your evidence.
He did this to several witnesses BUT a couple of the lay people played him at his own game. - he was also implying that if you didn't have letters after your then your evidence wasn't credible.
He repeatedly kept asking people again and again what your qualification were - e.g. are you an ecologist like his witness, are you a gun expert if not you can't express an opinion about clay pigeon shooting.
I was not out to impress anyone - I was there to speak on behalf of the Warrington Nature Conservation Forum and residents, get the facts across as we saw them and try and stop the appeal. We certainly didn’t lose the case because of what I said or did and the inspector did write down a number of the points that I made.
I have my way of doing things and my members were pleased with my performance - I certainly found the whole thing draining and learnt a massive amount for any future campaigns.
Speaking to a very experience planning officer this week he confirmed that advocates do have a very aggressive and intimidating style as did the one we faced and you certainly don’t lie down and let someone like that walk all over you. After the experience I went through I fully agree.
So as the advocate would say to you if you were giving evidence – where is you evidence and what are you qualifications and experience?
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.[/p][/quote]No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision. Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.[/p][/quote]I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done[/p][/quote]You have to remember that I was there for 5 full days so what do you base your evidence and opinion on. Neither I nor anyone else swore. I went there and gave it my best shot. Their advocate was the one putting us under pressure and asking people to back up what they were saying with verifiable evidence i.e. the academic qualifications; if you didn’t have them then he would disregard and belittle you and your evidence. He did this to several witnesses BUT a couple of the lay people played him at his own game. - he was also implying that if you didn't have letters after your then your evidence wasn't credible. He repeatedly kept asking people again and again what your qualification were - e.g. are you an ecologist like his witness, are you a gun expert if not you can't express an opinion about clay pigeon shooting. I was not out to impress anyone - I was there to speak on behalf of the Warrington Nature Conservation Forum and residents, get the facts across as we saw them and try and stop the appeal. We certainly didn’t lose the case because of what I said or did and the inspector did write down a number of the points that I made. I have my way of doing things and my members were pleased with my performance - I certainly found the whole thing draining and learnt a massive amount for any future campaigns. Speaking to a very experience planning officer this week he confirmed that advocates do have a very aggressive and intimidating style as did the one we faced and you certainly don’t lie down and let someone like that walk all over you. After the experience I went through I fully agree. So as the advocate would say to you if you were giving evidence – where is you evidence and what are you qualifications and experience? Geoff Settle
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

toodlepip1 wrote:
Who is inspector Martin Joyce? who does he work for? why was the decision left to him?. What qualifications does he have? did he visit the site? how can this open next to a nature reserve? it just doesn't make sense....we need answers.
He was the Inspector appointed by the government (I think) to oversee the appeal - a very experienced man with a lifetime of planning behind him - he's chartered member of the Planning Profession and independent - his word is god. He visited the site before and after the appeal. This is standard procedure for a planning appeal - the same happened at last years Peel Hall planning appeal.
[quote][p][bold]toodlepip1[/bold] wrote: Who is inspector Martin Joyce? who does he work for? why was the decision left to him?. What qualifications does he have? did he visit the site? how can this open next to a nature reserve? it just doesn't make sense....we need answers.[/p][/quote]He was the Inspector appointed by the government (I think) to oversee the appeal - a very experienced man with a lifetime of planning behind him - he's chartered member of the Planning Profession and independent - his word is god. He visited the site before and after the appeal. This is standard procedure for a planning appeal - the same happened at last years Peel Hall planning appeal. Geoff Settle
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Sat 8 Feb 14

PageA says...

Geoff Settle wrote:
PageA wrote:
Geoff Settle wrote:
J H Wise wrote:
I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error.
But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.
No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision.
Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.
I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done
You have to remember that I was there for 5 full days so what do you base your evidence and opinion on. Neither I nor anyone else swore. I went there and gave it my best shot. Their advocate was the one putting us under pressure and asking people to back up what they were saying with verifiable evidence i.e. the academic qualifications; if you didn’t have them then he would disregard and belittle you and your evidence.
He did this to several witnesses BUT a couple of the lay people played him at his own game. - he was also implying that if you didn't have letters after your then your evidence wasn't credible.
He repeatedly kept asking people again and again what your qualification were - e.g. are you an ecologist like his witness, are you a gun expert if not you can't express an opinion about clay pigeon shooting.
I was not out to impress anyone - I was there to speak on behalf of the Warrington Nature Conservation Forum and residents, get the facts across as we saw them and try and stop the appeal. We certainly didn’t lose the case because of what I said or did and the inspector did write down a number of the points that I made.
I have my way of doing things and my members were pleased with my performance - I certainly found the whole thing draining and learnt a massive amount for any future campaigns.
Speaking to a very experience planning officer this week he confirmed that advocates do have a very aggressive and intimidating style as did the one we faced and you certainly don’t lie down and let someone like that walk all over you. After the experience I went through I fully agree.
So as the advocate would say to you if you were giving evidence – where is you evidence and what are you qualifications and experience?
Geoff I wrote it..then I deleted it. You seem like a good bloke. Best of Luck
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Settle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J H Wise[/bold] wrote: I must make an apology, I did not realize that WBC did not make the final decision. sorry for my error. But I am still so upset that these people have got the go ahead.[/p][/quote]No worries - like you we are all fuming about the decision. Having stood down from the planning committee to campaign against the appeal, sat though five full days of evidence and at last been allowed to speak on the fifth day I am surprised that I didn't swear my head off I was that angry.[/p][/quote]I seriously think you need a course in anger management Geoff. Swearing your head off or looking like you're about to doesn't impress anyone. I'm disappointed by your opinion that only the evidence of people with letters after their name was taken seriously and that's disingenuous of you to suggest in my opinion. I'm not surprised the decision didn't go in favour of the angry, swearing people with a big chip on their shoulders about their own level of education. 5 days to fail rather than 3..well done[/p][/quote]You have to remember that I was there for 5 full days so what do you base your evidence and opinion on. Neither I nor anyone else swore. I went there and gave it my best shot. Their advocate was the one putting us under pressure and asking people to back up what they were saying with verifiable evidence i.e. the academic qualifications; if you didn’t have them then he would disregard and belittle you and your evidence. He did this to several witnesses BUT a couple of the lay people played him at his own game. - he was also implying that if you didn't have letters after your then your evidence wasn't credible. He repeatedly kept asking people again and again what your qualification were - e.g. are you an ecologist like his witness, are you a gun expert if not you can't express an opinion about clay pigeon shooting. I was not out to impress anyone - I was there to speak on behalf of the Warrington Nature Conservation Forum and residents, get the facts across as we saw them and try and stop the appeal. We certainly didn’t lose the case because of what I said or did and the inspector did write down a number of the points that I made. I have my way of doing things and my members were pleased with my performance - I certainly found the whole thing draining and learnt a massive amount for any future campaigns. Speaking to a very experience planning officer this week he confirmed that advocates do have a very aggressive and intimidating style as did the one we faced and you certainly don’t lie down and let someone like that walk all over you. After the experience I went through I fully agree. So as the advocate would say to you if you were giving evidence – where is you evidence and what are you qualifications and experience?[/p][/quote]Geoff I wrote it..then I deleted it. You seem like a good bloke. Best of Luck PageA
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

That's ok I try to be - I think being at the appeal has rubbed off on me and it's hard to condense what happened in 6 days into a thread on here :-)
That's ok I try to be - I think being at the appeal has rubbed off on me and it's hard to condense what happened in 6 days into a thread on here :-) Geoff Settle
  • Score: 2

8:50am Thu 13 Feb 14

Geoff Settle says...

Here's the direct link to the full PDF Appeal Decision document to read online so that you can read the verdict in full :-(

Appeal A: APP/M0655/C/13/21962
29 and Appeal B: APP/M0655/A/13/21962
26

http://www.pcs.plann
ingportal.gov.uk/pcs
portal/fscdav/READON
LY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.
12.6252658&NAME=/Dec
ision.pdf
Here's the direct link to the full PDF Appeal Decision document to read online so that you can read the verdict in full :-( Appeal A: APP/M0655/C/13/21962 29 and Appeal B: APP/M0655/A/13/21962 26 http://www.pcs.plann ingportal.gov.uk/pcs portal/fscdav/READON LY?OBJ=COO.2036.300. 12.6252658&NAME=/Dec ision.pdf Geoff Settle
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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