PEEL appeal funded by Salford council taxpayers, LOOK OUT MERSEYSIDE!
PEEL HOLDINGS TO APPEAL SALFORD COUNCIL HOUSING REFUSAL
|
Salford Star date: 21st July 2011
SALFORD TAX PAYERS TO PICK UP THE BILL FOR PEEL HOLDINGS BURGESS FARM HOUSING APPEAL…As Council document reveals a further 200 houses on the green field site…
Peel Holdings is to appeal against the recent refusal by Salford Council's planning panel to grant permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden. The £multi-billion company is demanding that Salford tax payers pick up the bill.
Meanwhile, Salford Council documents show plans for a further 200 houses on the Burgess Farm site.
Full story here… |
http://www.salfordstar.com/images/l/...010%282%29.JPG |
It was only a few weeks ago that, following a shambolic Salford Council planning panel meeting, Peel Holdings was refused outline planning permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden/Little Hulton (see here).
Yesterday, Salford councillors were told that Peel Holdings is not only planning to appeal against the democratic decision of the planning committee but is demanding full costs from the Council (ie Salford tax payers) to pay for that appeal.
Even Councillor Derek Antrobus, the Lead Member for Planning who was actually in favour of the Peel Holdings development at that planning meeting, hinted at indignation when he tweeted on Twitter yesterday afternoon…
"Peel appeal against Burgess Farm and demand full costs claiming Council unreasonable. Council to defend refusal. Up to Govt now."
A more restrained quote by the councillor was issued by Salford Council later in the day…
"Peel has exercised its legal right to appeal and this will be a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to consider. The council will resist the appeal and defend its decision to refuse the planning application."
While Salford tax payers pick up Peel's bill for the costs of its appeal, it has come to light that, not only does Peel want to build 350 houses on the Burgess Farm green field site, there are plans for a further 200 houses on the site, making a total of 550 houses.
Salford Council's Development Plan (Core Strategy) lists all the city's housing needs and the sites that will be built on between 2010-2030. There's currently a draft 66 page `pre-publication' consultation document on the Council's website which residents can comment on until August 1st (click here). Accompanying the Development Plan is another `changes in housing supply' document which lists every site in the city where houses could be built.
Within this latter document (page 34) (click here) it states quite clearly that the `Site to the south west of Hilton Lane and north of Waverley Road (Burgess Farm)' will have 350 houses on it. And in another section, it states equally clearly `Burgess Farm 2 – land off Hilton Lane' 200 houses.
That's 550 houses in total in a green field area that has protected great crested newts, where traffic congestion would be horrific, and where Salford Council's own planning report stated that there was no need for housing.
Campaigners against the proposed Burgess Farm development are urging residents to object to the plans before August 1st by…
• e-mail plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk
• by post to: Core Strategy Consultation, Spatial Planning, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton M27 5BY.
There should be printed copies of the Development Plan and `housing supply list' in all of the city's libraries.
The Development Plan can also be viewed by clicking here
The list of sites for housing can be viewed by clicking here
* The Salford Star will be covering other housing issues thrown up by the Development Plan over the coming days…
|
http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif |
|
mary ferrer wrote
at 12:23:30 PM on Friday, July 22, 2011 |
|
|
I think if the appeal if found against the council,then the council pay If peel loose the apeal THEN they pay. Don't think that if Mrs Jones appeals against a refusal of her kitchen extention she could ask the council to pay,so why are PEEL any different. Lets just hope the inspector finds in favour of the council and tells peel to sod off. |
|
|
|
Salford Star wrote
at 11:11:04 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011 |
|
|
See Tom's comment...Good point Tom - the councillor's tweet says `demand'. |
|
|
|
Tom wrote
at 11:08:24 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011 |
|
|
Star, is it not in fact standard practice that the council incurs costs for planning appeals? Are Peel actively demanding that SCC fund the appeal, or is it just routine procedure? I think it's important that you clarify this point. |
|
|
|
Measured View wrote
at 4:27:15 PM on Thursday, July 21, 2011 |
|
|
Hmmm....Multi Millionaire Company takes on City Council and loses, then asks council to fund their appeal...does anybody spot the punchline here? Peel can fund their own appeal, the council should throw it out if Peel can't (or wont) fund it themselves! |
|
|
|
Ronnie Thompson wrote
at 11:31:08 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011 |
|
|
TELL THESE PARASITIC CHUMS OF THE CLOWNCIL TO SOD OFF , AND TAKE THE TRAFFORD CENTRE WITH THEM . |
|
|
|
Bob Flowers wrote
at 8:06:01 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011 |
|
|
The ineptitude , bungling , waste and squander at the swinetown big top just goes on and on .What a circus .Peel will get their way , and the clouncil will pick up the bill . WE TAXPAYERS HAVE ONCE AGAIN BEEN SHAFTED . |
|
|
|
Nachtschlepper wrote
at 8:05:30 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011 |
|
|
It's time these parasites were told where to go. This company is bleeding the City of Salford dry. Our so called leaders will do nothing to stop them so perhaps we need to take matters into ur own hand. Demonstrations at Media City & the Trafford Centre might be a start. |
|
|
:question::question::question::protest:
Chas
Lightning strikes as thread unwinds
Quote:
Originally Posted by
grekko
Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.
I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.
Thanks for YOUR opinion, Grekko. I've often stated my views on the Everton area and it's demolition and they don't coincide with a lot of people. That won't stop me from holding my views. I'm English working class, C of E, I now live up the road from Everton in Anfield, not here, there and anywhere, it would be revealing to know where the pro Peel activists live or where they came from.
It was Lindylou who brought the Everton area into this thread, it's difficult enough to stay on thread, so before I go any further:-
PEEL ARE A THREAT TO MERSEYSIDE
Their sole motivation is profit, but as Colonel Gedaffi and his followers say, it's a rich man's world.
Sociably,
Chas:smoke: