Fans hit out after council demands 'illegal' pub extension be knocked down

Fans hit out after council demands 'illegal' pub extension be knocked down

The 'shed' at the King's Head

Andy Fannon inside

First published in News
Last updated

WARRINGTON Borough Council has demanded an ‘illegal’ pub conservatory is knocked down - despite being popular with Warrington Wolves fans on match days.

An online campaign has been launched to ‘save’ the new conservatory at the King’s Head pub on Winwick Street.

However, the building is listed and owner Andy Fannon did not get planning permission for the large extension.

Pete Astley, assistant director for regulation and public protection, said: “The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town and ensure that any changes or development of its listed buildings, such as the Kings Head, meets stringent planning requirements.

“This extension, which we believe adversely impacts on the character of the building, was built without planning permission and is therefore illegal and needs to be removed.

“The owner of the King’s Head has appealed against the enforcement notice.

“The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate.

“We cannot have one rule for one business and one for another.

“It’s important that we protect our listed buildings.

“The public can rest assured that we will take strong action wherever necessary to protect the town’s heritage against any unscrupulous or unauthorised development.”

Regulars have rallied to protest.

A ‘Save Our Shed’ Facebook page has been created, along with an online petition which has more than 130 signatures so far.

Andy, who took over the pub in 2011, said he did not realise planning permission would be needed.

“The council came down and said you shouldn’t have done that, and I said fair enough, I’ve made a mistake,” he said.

“They said I have to take it down, but it’s a great addition to the area, and it’s doing no harm.

“I didn’t know I needed planning permission for the car park area, so I was naive.”

The landlord, who says he has spent £100,000 on refurbishing the King’s Head since taking over, is still hoping for a positive outcome.

He added: “We will do whatever the council wants retrospectively, but they say it’s out of character with the rest of the building.

“I’m all for keeping our listed buildings, but it has got to be financially viable.”

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:01am Thu 21 Aug 14

richiepooh says...

Pete Astley, assistant director for regulation and public protection, said: “The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town "


And they say Tim Vine won funniest joke of the year !!!!
Pete Astley, assistant director for regulation and public protection, said: “The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town " And they say Tim Vine won funniest joke of the year !!!! richiepooh
  • Score: 49

8:17am Thu 21 Aug 14

steven46 says...

Best of luck to all at the Kings Head in beating the council in this joke of a decision
Best of luck to all at the Kings Head in beating the council in this joke of a decision steven46
  • Score: 27

8:27am Thu 21 Aug 14

wire1974 says...

“The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town "... yet they are allowing one of the most iconic buildings in Warrington be flattened
“The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town "... yet they are allowing one of the most iconic buildings in Warrington be flattened wire1974
  • Score: 43

8:27am Thu 21 Aug 14

lazylips72 says...

The shed does not impact on the character of the building at all it looks no different from the front and there is only a car park at the back. I have used this pub for over 25 years and since Andrew took over the pub he has made massive improvements not just with the shed, they have completely refurbished the inside of the pub including the toilets which was well needed. The atmosphere is that of a friendly local even when there are rugby matches. The planning department need to get a grip and rethink this decision!
The shed does not impact on the character of the building at all it looks no different from the front and there is only a car park at the back. I have used this pub for over 25 years and since Andrew took over the pub he has made massive improvements not just with the shed, they have completely refurbished the inside of the pub including the toilets which was well needed. The atmosphere is that of a friendly local even when there are rugby matches. The planning department need to get a grip and rethink this decision! lazylips72
  • Score: 38

8:40am Thu 21 Aug 14

kazrobo says...

Its a great idea they came up with, its always buzzing and packed on match days. The pub trade is dying and the council need to support this pubs idea!!
Its a great idea they came up with, its always buzzing and packed on match days. The pub trade is dying and the council need to support this pubs idea!! kazrobo
  • Score: 45

9:36am Thu 21 Aug 14

Macca03 says...

I think somewhere along the lines the council are taking the listing building issue to the extreme. As a ex planning officer the listed building guide lines and English heritage are somewhat muddled. As far as I can remember consultation and mediation is always the best way forward. I know the Kings Head very well and the actual listing is on the front although this then entails the full curtilage to fall under the remit, the shed is attached to a 1990's extension and is not visible from the front so in my opinion work with Andy or the result maybe it being returned to its original state which was an uneven derelict piece of land only fit for scrap vehicles. I hope the council haven't threated Andy using the proceeds of crime scenario which I have seen on a couple of occasions. 'Save Of Shed'
I think somewhere along the lines the council are taking the listing building issue to the extreme. As a ex planning officer the listed building guide lines and English heritage are somewhat muddled. As far as I can remember consultation and mediation is always the best way forward. I know the Kings Head very well and the actual listing is on the front although this then entails the full curtilage to fall under the remit, the shed is attached to a 1990's extension and is not visible from the front so in my opinion work with Andy or the result maybe it being returned to its original state which was an uneven derelict piece of land only fit for scrap vehicles. I hope the council haven't threated Andy using the proceeds of crime scenario which I have seen on a couple of occasions. 'Save Of Shed' Macca03
  • Score: 26

10:00am Thu 21 Aug 14

Oldboy60 says...

I have been going in the Kings Head for the best part of 40 years and in this time I have seen the pub deteriorate and since Andy and his family took over a few year ago with their hard work and determination they have transform this seemingly forget building with which seems to be there own investment into a wonderful, clean safe environment. Why would the council what an elderly gentlemen and many others like me and all our children and grandchildren stand out in the rain on a cold wet day when we can stay warm and dry and have a brilliant time in the so called 'illegal' shed. Please don't let the council take it down. 'SAVE OUR SHED'!!!!
I have been going in the Kings Head for the best part of 40 years and in this time I have seen the pub deteriorate and since Andy and his family took over a few year ago with their hard work and determination they have transform this seemingly forget building with which seems to be there own investment into a wonderful, clean safe environment. Why would the council what an elderly gentlemen and many others like me and all our children and grandchildren stand out in the rain on a cold wet day when we can stay warm and dry and have a brilliant time in the so called 'illegal' shed. Please don't let the council take it down. 'SAVE OUR SHED'!!!! Oldboy60
  • Score: 19

10:05am Thu 21 Aug 14

milly269 says...

I didn't even know it was there, so it can't impact on the listed building that much! Instead of knocking it why not give a bit of praise for a landlord that is working hard at making his business a success? The council wants to look at real issues like transport rather than 'easy' issues like a shed at the bottom of the car park!
I didn't even know it was there, so it can't impact on the listed building that much! Instead of knocking it why not give a bit of praise for a landlord that is working hard at making his business a success? The council wants to look at real issues like transport rather than 'easy' issues like a shed at the bottom of the car park! milly269
  • Score: 31

10:21am Thu 21 Aug 14

mrdaveyasdfr says...

Why should they get away without planning permission. Where would we be if every one did that? How do we know it meets building regs and is safe? Will he be paying more rates due to the increased size of the building?

I don't think they should be made to take it down unit it gets turned down for planning permission but they should have to get planning permission.

I don't see how you can flout the rules then complain about the consequences.
Why should they get away without planning permission. Where would we be if every one did that? How do we know it meets building regs and is safe? Will he be paying more rates due to the increased size of the building? I don't think they should be made to take it down unit it gets turned down for planning permission but they should have to get planning permission. I don't see how you can flout the rules then complain about the consequences. mrdaveyasdfr
  • Score: -17

10:25am Thu 21 Aug 14

AJH123 says...

Wasn't the Bay Horse a listed building?? The Kings head is a great place to go on matchdays for all ages. It would be such a shame if all the Landlords hard work goes to waste, as people have already stated you would have no idea that the "shed" was there. I really hope that a compromise can be reached
Wasn't the Bay Horse a listed building?? The Kings head is a great place to go on matchdays for all ages. It would be such a shame if all the Landlords hard work goes to waste, as people have already stated you would have no idea that the "shed" was there. I really hope that a compromise can be reached AJH123
  • Score: 42

10:26am Thu 21 Aug 14

Penketh Pony says...

The owner of the pub is correct in realising he was naive, if you own a listed building it should be common sense to realise any extensions/building work requires planning permission.

I am not arguing that the extension materially detracts from the pub, but it should be subject to the same planning laws as every other resident in the borough. If the owner went via correct procedure, he may not have found himself in the position he is in.
The owner of the pub is correct in realising he was naive, if you own a listed building it should be common sense to realise any extensions/building work requires planning permission. I am not arguing that the extension materially detracts from the pub, but it should be subject to the same planning laws as every other resident in the borough. If the owner went via correct procedure, he may not have found himself in the position he is in. Penketh Pony
  • Score: 13

10:52am Thu 21 Aug 14

TheCommentatorWrites says...

Looks like a temporary structure to me. Don't need planning for that. Where's the petition?
Looks like a temporary structure to me. Don't need planning for that. Where's the petition? TheCommentatorWrites
  • Score: 20

10:59am Thu 21 Aug 14

Oldboy60 says...

There is a petition inside the Kings Head. They have over 500 signatures I believe. 'Save Of Shed'
There is a petition inside the Kings Head. They have over 500 signatures I believe. 'Save Of Shed' Oldboy60
  • Score: 13

11:00am Thu 21 Aug 14

Sunshine00 says...

I have been going in the Kings Head for quite some years now, and since The Fannon Family took over the pub, its improved massively. The shed is a fantastic place to be, My Family and I go there for match days! and being in the shed means my children are safe plus were sheltered from the cold wet wind days we mainly have in Warrington! So why take down something that brings so much pleasure and happiness to the area. It has a great friendly atmosphere, brilliant charity events, and also encourages young talents to express there selves. What harm is it doing...? NONE! Warrington Borough Council need to sort their priorities out and take step back and let us all enjoy the kings head shed!!!
I have been going in the Kings Head for quite some years now, and since The Fannon Family took over the pub, its improved massively. The shed is a fantastic place to be, My Family and I go there for match days! and being in the shed means my children are safe plus were sheltered from the cold wet wind days we mainly have in Warrington! So why take down something that brings so much pleasure and happiness to the area. It has a great friendly atmosphere, brilliant charity events, and also encourages young talents to express there selves. What harm is it doing...? NONE! Warrington Borough Council need to sort their priorities out and take step back and let us all enjoy the kings head shed!!! Sunshine00
  • Score: 15

11:16am Thu 21 Aug 14

LILLYJACKSON says...

I have been going in the Kings Head for years, infact I got engaged to my Billy there, sadly he died, We have seen some good and bad changes to the Kings Head, The owners now are by far the best ,they have brought so much to a public house that would of closed. It's lovely to see this public house now given a new lease of life. It's a place where the young and old enjoy and feel safe, Please don't spoil this for the wolf's fans, it's also a place where up and coming singing talent can express them selves. I watched this conservatory being built by local craftmenship. It's what warrington need.These owners do a lot for charity,they are good family men.And all the staff are warm and lovely.You can't see the shed from the front,so why all the fuss from the council, It's a credit to the owners the pub and front and back is spotless,they take a lot of pride in this public house.Godbless ljx
I have been going in the Kings Head for years, infact I got engaged to my Billy there, sadly he died, We have seen some good and bad changes to the Kings Head, The owners now are by far the best ,they have brought so much to a public house that would of closed. It's lovely to see this public house now given a new lease of life. It's a place where the young and old enjoy and feel safe, Please don't spoil this for the wolf's fans, it's also a place where up and coming singing talent can express them selves. I watched this conservatory being built by local craftmenship. It's what warrington need.These owners do a lot for charity,they are good family men.And all the staff are warm and lovely.You can't see the shed from the front,so why all the fuss from the council, It's a credit to the owners the pub and front and back is spotless,they take a lot of pride in this public house.Godbless ljx LILLYJACKSON
  • Score: 16

11:16am Thu 21 Aug 14

grey_man says...

mrdaveyasdfr wrote:
Why should they get away without planning permission. Where would we be if every one did that? How do we know it meets building regs and is safe? Will he be paying more rates due to the increased size of the building?

I don't think they should be made to take it down unit it gets turned down for planning permission but they should have to get planning permission.

I don't see how you can flout the rules then complain about the consequences.
Some people do get away with it and a lot worse. He's obviously just got the wrong building company to do the work.
[quote][p][bold]mrdaveyasdfr[/bold] wrote: Why should they get away without planning permission. Where would we be if every one did that? How do we know it meets building regs and is safe? Will he be paying more rates due to the increased size of the building? I don't think they should be made to take it down unit it gets turned down for planning permission but they should have to get planning permission. I don't see how you can flout the rules then complain about the consequences.[/p][/quote]Some people do get away with it and a lot worse. He's obviously just got the wrong building company to do the work. grey_man
  • Score: 5

12:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gordon holt says...

he must really be naïve if he thought he could erect a conservatory without getting planning permission, so down it comes, the council have spoken
he must really be naïve if he thought he could erect a conservatory without getting planning permission, so down it comes, the council have spoken gordon holt
  • Score: 5

12:44pm Thu 21 Aug 14

jonesy1980 says...

What an absolute **** decision. You can't even notice it being there without going in. Good meeting point for match days, wont be happy if the council get their way.

You have to question the landlord's actions though, lot of money to spend building something like this without checking about planning permission.
What an absolute **** decision. You can't even notice it being there without going in. Good meeting point for match days, wont be happy if the council get their way. You have to question the landlord's actions though, lot of money to spend building something like this without checking about planning permission. jonesy1980
  • Score: 6

1:02pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Take2toTango says...

Listed or not, a structure of that size needs planning permission. "It's just a local business trying to make some money". So was Orford Farm, but that doesn't mean it's right!
Listed or not, a structure of that size needs planning permission. "It's just a local business trying to make some money". So was Orford Farm, but that doesn't mean it's right! Take2toTango
  • Score: 14

1:35pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Freeborn John says...

Is this the same planning department who became the laughing stock of every other council in the country by destroying a large number of its own planning records and saying "Oops!"
I still think they should have had the police in over that one...
If they spent as much time on what goes on within their own four walls as they do noseying around behind the Kings Head this embarrassing incident could have been avoided!
Is this the same planning department who became the laughing stock of every other council in the country by destroying a large number of its own planning records and saying "Oops!" I still think they should have had the police in over that one... If they spent as much time on what goes on within their own four walls as they do noseying around behind the Kings Head this embarrassing incident could have been avoided! Freeborn John
  • Score: 8

1:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Big Job Bob says...

What seems to be forgotten is that for many years the poor old Kings Head had to put up with several derelict shops attached to the building which were only knocked down last year.

From what I have been told, the shed was put up with haste due to the fact that Warrington & Co told them that the adjoining site would be full of construction workers, so they seem to be acting with great initiative.

Seems like thousands of people have used the venue without incident and all they are guilty of is of not being aware of listing planning requirements as most Joe Publics aren't.

Seven hundred plus Joe Publics have signed the petition to save it so what are you going to do Mr & Mrs Council? The people of Warrington have spoken!!
What seems to be forgotten is that for many years the poor old Kings Head had to put up with several derelict shops attached to the building which were only knocked down last year. From what I have been told, the shed was put up with haste due to the fact that Warrington & Co told them that the adjoining site would be full of construction workers, so they seem to be acting with great initiative. Seems like thousands of people have used the venue without incident and all they are guilty of is of not being aware of listing planning requirements as most Joe Publics aren't. Seven hundred plus Joe Publics have signed the petition to save it so what are you going to do Mr & Mrs Council? The people of Warrington have spoken!! Big Job Bob
  • Score: 6

2:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Penketh Pony says...

Freeborn John wrote:
Is this the same planning department who became the laughing stock of every other council in the country by destroying a large number of its own planning records and saying "Oops!"
I still think they should have had the police in over that one...
If they spent as much time on what goes on within their own four walls as they do noseying around behind the Kings Head this embarrassing incident could have been avoided!
If the pub landlord spent as much time on what goes on within his four 'extended' walls, and applied for planning permission, this embarrassing incident could have been avoided.

No matter how personal some people are being about this decision, everyone should realise deep down that everyone has to be treated the same. He should have applied for planning permission, he didn't, so he is facing the consequences. Fair play.
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: Is this the same planning department who became the laughing stock of every other council in the country by destroying a large number of its own planning records and saying "Oops!" I still think they should have had the police in over that one... If they spent as much time on what goes on within their own four walls as they do noseying around behind the Kings Head this embarrassing incident could have been avoided![/p][/quote]If the pub landlord spent as much time on what goes on within his four 'extended' walls, and applied for planning permission, this embarrassing incident could have been avoided. No matter how personal some people are being about this decision, everyone should realise deep down that everyone has to be treated the same. He should have applied for planning permission, he didn't, so he is facing the consequences. Fair play. Penketh Pony
  • Score: 9

2:14pm Thu 21 Aug 14

WInwick Pig says...

Sometimes I despair at the lack of foresight and ineptitutde of WBC.

5 years ago there were 'Grand Plans' for the transformation of Winwick Street.
Hailed as a new gateway to the town with a new cinema, shops, restaurants and a hotel.

http://www.warringto
nguardian.co.uk/news
/4878064.Wireworks_p
lan_stays_in_limbo/

The council had hurridly and clumsily cleared the area of builidings both listed and none listed to make way for the scheme and then...

Nothing.

Everything went on hold and it was greed the site would remain a car park for the next 5 years, (Isn't it strange that was in 2010 nearly 5 years ago)

Our town centre and surrounds are a glimmer of what they used to be and those who show initiative should be supported not slapped down when they do something to help bring in custom.

I am certain, if and, when the Winwick Street development gets the go ahead, such trivial matters as someone putting up a conservatory in an area that has no impact to anyone but the cars parked in the wasteland behind or the pigeons looking down from the railway arches nearby will not matter a pint pot!

oink :@)
Sometimes I despair at the lack of foresight and ineptitutde of WBC. 5 years ago there were 'Grand Plans' for the transformation of Winwick Street. Hailed as a new gateway to the town with a new cinema, shops, restaurants and a hotel. http://www.warringto nguardian.co.uk/news /4878064.Wireworks_p lan_stays_in_limbo/ The council had hurridly and clumsily cleared the area of builidings both listed and none listed to make way for the scheme and then... Nothing. Everything went on hold and it was greed the site would remain a car park for the next 5 years, (Isn't it strange that was in 2010 nearly 5 years ago) Our town centre and surrounds are a glimmer of what they used to be and those who show initiative should be supported not slapped down when they do something to help bring in custom. I am certain, if and, when the Winwick Street development gets the go ahead, such trivial matters as someone putting up a conservatory in an area that has no impact to anyone but the cars parked in the wasteland behind or the pigeons looking down from the railway arches nearby will not matter a pint pot! oink :@) WInwick Pig
  • Score: 13

6:43pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Paul Kennedy says...

"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp
ortal.gov.uk/plannin
g/planninginspectora
te
"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/plannin g/planninginspectora te Paul Kennedy
  • Score: -3

7:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Barbara K says...

Paul Kennedy wrote:
"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp

ortal.gov.uk/plannin

g/planninginspectora

te
There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Kennedy[/bold] wrote: "The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/plannin g/planninginspectora te[/p][/quote]There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out. Barbara K
  • Score: 3

8:11pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Karlar says...

Barbara K wrote:
Paul Kennedy wrote:
"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp


ortal.gov.uk/plannin


g/planninginspectora


te
There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.
I wish you were right with your final sentence/sentiments the truth will never come out because a considerable amount of time and effort is put into prevent it doing so.
[quote][p][bold]Barbara K[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Kennedy[/bold] wrote: "The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/plannin g/planninginspectora te[/p][/quote]There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.[/p][/quote]I wish you were right with your final sentence/sentiments the truth will never come out because a considerable amount of time and effort is put into prevent it doing so. Karlar
  • Score: 2

9:12pm Thu 21 Aug 14

wirematt says...

Warrington borough council = twa**
Warrington borough council = twa** wirematt
  • Score: -5

9:55pm Thu 21 Aug 14

choperado says...

Or WBC - What a Bunch of Cu##s
Or WBC - What a Bunch of Cu##s choperado
  • Score: -8

10:02pm Thu 21 Aug 14

choperado says...

By the way that was Cukes. A vegetable related to the Melon. ;-)
By the way that was Cukes. A vegetable related to the Melon. ;-) choperado
  • Score: -3

10:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

grey_man says...

Barbara K wrote:
Paul Kennedy wrote:
"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp


ortal.gov.uk/plannin


g/planninginspectora


te
There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.
You can see the way the council has an 'apparently' arbitrary approach to enforcement in the way it is dealing with waste. It is in dispute with the company which is in breach of its contract to use Arpley landfill but has also awarded the same company the contract to manage recycling sites and - indeed - is closing two of the current three at its behest.

LIke I said, Andy Fannon should have worked out which building companies have the most productive relationship with the planning department and got them to do the work. I'm sure we can think of at least one.
[quote][p][bold]Barbara K[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Kennedy[/bold] wrote: "The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/plannin g/planninginspectora te[/p][/quote]There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.[/p][/quote]You can see the way the council has an 'apparently' arbitrary approach to enforcement in the way it is dealing with waste. It is in dispute with the company which is in breach of its contract to use Arpley landfill but has also awarded the same company the contract to manage recycling sites and - indeed - is closing two of the current three at its behest. LIke I said, Andy Fannon should have worked out which building companies have the most productive relationship with the planning department and got them to do the work. I'm sure we can think of at least one. grey_man
  • Score: 5

12:23pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Karlar says...

grey_man wrote:
Barbara K wrote:
Paul Kennedy wrote:
"The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp



ortal.gov.uk/plannin



g/planninginspectora



te
There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.
You can see the way the council has an 'apparently' arbitrary approach to enforcement in the way it is dealing with waste. It is in dispute with the company which is in breach of its contract to use Arpley landfill but has also awarded the same company the contract to manage recycling sites and - indeed - is closing two of the current three at its behest.

LIke I said, Andy Fannon should have worked out which building companies have the most productive relationship with the planning department and got them to do the work. I'm sure we can think of at least one.
Who is Andy Fannon and how much is his total renumeration package?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Barbara K[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Kennedy[/bold] wrote: "The matter will now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate". Both sides will put their case to the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Planning Inspector will make a decision, so in effect the matter is now out of the hands of WBC. The following website might be of help: http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/plannin g/planninginspectora te[/p][/quote]There are examples all over town of where plans have either not been implemented as per approved plans or where enforcement hasn't taken place (the landscaping scheme to the 'car park' on the corner of Parker Street, in the conservation area being one example) - the planning department is in my experience is at best unhelpful and worst has no interest in the views of the public it serves - see what response you (don't) get if you contact enforcement or try to challenge a planning decision. Regardless, sadly someone has decided to make an example of this gent. Something about the planning in Warrington doesn't smell right - can't put my finger on what but the truth will out.[/p][/quote]You can see the way the council has an 'apparently' arbitrary approach to enforcement in the way it is dealing with waste. It is in dispute with the company which is in breach of its contract to use Arpley landfill but has also awarded the same company the contract to manage recycling sites and - indeed - is closing two of the current three at its behest. LIke I said, Andy Fannon should have worked out which building companies have the most productive relationship with the planning department and got them to do the work. I'm sure we can think of at least one.[/p][/quote]Who is Andy Fannon and how much is his total renumeration package? Karlar
  • Score: -5

12:52pm Fri 22 Aug 14

grey_man says...

The pub owner, you numpty :)
The pub owner, you numpty :) grey_man
  • Score: -4

12:59pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Karlar says...

grey_man wrote:
The pub owner, you numpty :)
Must have been day dreaming. Will try harder next time
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: The pub owner, you numpty :)[/p][/quote]Must have been day dreaming. Will try harder next time Karlar
  • Score: -4

2:49pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Johnnytwostep says...

should have asked permission like everyone else. Get it knocked down
should have asked permission like everyone else. Get it knocked down Johnnytwostep
  • Score: -2

11:10pm Fri 22 Aug 14

marksiddall says...

so many old building have been demolished and made into pay and display car parks or apartments blocks council should be more bothered about getting traffic moving than wasting taxpapers money trying to get rid of a a valued commuity pub shed as describe , if it was a big company they would be falling all over them to help.....
so many old building have been demolished and made into pay and display car parks or apartments blocks council should be more bothered about getting traffic moving than wasting taxpapers money trying to get rid of a a valued commuity pub shed as describe , if it was a big company they would be falling all over them to help..... marksiddall
  • Score: 3

8:30pm Sat 23 Aug 14

SankeyB says...

I don't see what the fuss is about. He could have saved himself all this hassle if he'd simply phoned the council prior to doing the building work to check if he needed planning permission. It's his own fault. If he had done things properly to start with he'd have saved himself the money. Personally I think he was trying to play the system by putting it up in the hope that nothing would happen plus save himself the extra expense of building an extension which complied with listed building regulations .
I don't see what the fuss is about. He could have saved himself all this hassle if he'd simply phoned the council prior to doing the building work to check if he needed planning permission. It's his own fault. If he had done things properly to start with he'd have saved himself the money. Personally I think he was trying to play the system by putting it up in the hope that nothing would happen plus save himself the extra expense of building an extension which complied with listed building regulations . SankeyB
  • Score: 1

11:21pm Sat 23 Aug 14

MrHome says...

This is not good, Landlord just trying to make a living, When right now pubs closing every day. Business isn't good on the on trade. I'm a publican just the same all the best of luck with this KINGS HEAD from a number of WARRINGTON Landlords.
This is not good, Landlord just trying to make a living, When right now pubs closing every day. Business isn't good on the on trade. I'm a publican just the same all the best of luck with this KINGS HEAD from a number of WARRINGTON Landlords. MrHome
  • Score: 1

11:37pm Sun 24 Aug 14

grey-area says...

It's a brilliant match day pub. Bit heavy handed and hypocritical of the council to say about maintaining listed buildings, so knock it down. It would be interesting to know if planning would have been refused if Andy hadn't "upset" the junta. But should have gone for planning permission though.
It's a brilliant match day pub. Bit heavy handed and hypocritical of the council to say about maintaining listed buildings, so knock it down. It would be interesting to know if planning would have been refused if Andy hadn't "upset" the junta. But should have gone for planning permission though. grey-area
  • Score: 3

3:38am Mon 25 Aug 14

Dr Martin says...

Johnnytwostep wrote:
should have asked permission like everyone else. Get it knocked down
I agree
[quote][p][bold]Johnnytwostep[/bold] wrote: should have asked permission like everyone else. Get it knocked down[/p][/quote]I agree Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Mon 25 Aug 14

milly269 says...

The council will probably knock it down and put traffic lights in it's place to be in fitting with the area!
The council will probably knock it down and put traffic lights in it's place to be in fitting with the area! milly269
  • Score: 3

12:41pm Tue 26 Aug 14

gordon holt says...

listen, a lot of people have got a lot to say about this extension, now if the council allowed it to stay WITHOUT planning permission then all those people who have had their conservatories turned down would be up in arms, assuming they had applied for planning permission in the first place, I wonder how many have been erected without telling the council
listen, a lot of people have got a lot to say about this extension, now if the council allowed it to stay WITHOUT planning permission then all those people who have had their conservatories turned down would be up in arms, assuming they had applied for planning permission in the first place, I wonder how many have been erected without telling the council gordon holt
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 26 Aug 14

grey_man says...

All of those people who think it should be pulled down might want to search Google Earth or Google maps for a 65 hectare, £125 million manufacturing plant belonging to Quinn Glass in Elton, which Warrington Executive Director Andy Farrall allowed to be built while working for Chester City Council without planning permission or any form of certification and approved at a later date. So there is a massive 780,000 square yards sized precedent which the man who runs Warrington's planning function has established.
All of those people who think it should be pulled down might want to search Google Earth or Google maps for a 65 hectare, £125 million manufacturing plant belonging to Quinn Glass in Elton, which Warrington Executive Director Andy Farrall allowed to be built while working for Chester City Council without planning permission or any form of certification and approved at a later date. So there is a massive 780,000 square yards sized precedent which the man who runs Warrington's planning function has established. grey_man
  • Score: 3

8:38am Thu 28 Aug 14

Rugbychick83 says...

"The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town"?? I've never read a bigger bare - faced lie in my life. The council don't give a crapola about heritage in this town: highlighted by the demolition of large swathes of listed buildings around the town centre to accommodate the bypass, car parks and ugly steel and glass monstrosities in the name of 'progress'. To a wider extent; there is absolutely no heritage left in this town, it's been systematically sold off or pulled down for profit decade after decade. Bewsey Old Hall being just the latest crime against the history of our town. Go and find old pictures of Warrington, see how much history was destroyed to build the mall and the old bus station. For a town that has existed since Roman times, a walk around Warrington would have you believing we only sprung into existence in the 1970's. If Warrington teachers want to show their children history they have to take them out of town to do it. I find that very sad.

A wealth of history properly managed in a town is long-term profit: it brings in visitors who spend more et in the wider area using pubs/restaurants/hot
els. But the council would rather their lump sum from Urban Splash (for example) than put money in Bewsey Old Hall as a long term investment.

Yes the landlord didn't get planning permission , that was wrong of him. Everybody should be bound by the same rules, taxpayer and council alike. But when there's profit in it for them the council are happy to award retrospective planning permission but of course, in this case, it doesn't benefit them so they're coming down with their giant jack boots to stamp their authority. After all, can't have the minions doing as they please. We'll just completely ignore the fact that only the front of the pub is listed... and the extension is at the back. Obviously that's not at all the same as keeping the old Boots frontage and *demolishing* everything behind it to build a new market hall, as the council are currently planning....
"The council works hard to protect the heritage of the town"?? I've never read a bigger bare - faced lie in my life. The council don't give a crapola about heritage in this town: highlighted by the demolition of large swathes of listed buildings around the town centre to accommodate the bypass, car parks and ugly steel and glass monstrosities in the name of 'progress'. To a wider extent; there is absolutely no heritage left in this town, it's been systematically sold off or pulled down for profit decade after decade. Bewsey Old Hall being just the latest crime against the history of our town. Go and find old pictures of Warrington, see how much history was destroyed to build the mall and the old bus station. For a town that has existed since Roman times, a walk around Warrington would have you believing we only sprung into existence in the 1970's. If Warrington teachers want to show their children history they have to take them out of town to do it. I find that very sad. A wealth of history properly managed in a town is long-term profit: it brings in visitors who spend more et in the wider area using pubs/restaurants/hot els. But the council would rather their lump sum from Urban Splash (for example) than put money in Bewsey Old Hall as a long term investment. Yes the landlord didn't get planning permission , that was wrong of him. Everybody should be bound by the same rules, taxpayer and council alike. But when there's profit in it for them the council are happy to award retrospective planning permission but of course, in this case, it doesn't benefit them so they're coming down with their giant jack boots to stamp their authority. After all, can't have the minions doing as they please. We'll just completely ignore the fact that only the front of the pub is listed... and the extension is at the back. Obviously that's not at all the same as keeping the old Boots frontage and *demolishing* everything behind it to build a new market hall, as the council are currently planning.... Rugbychick83
  • Score: 3

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