Quarries
D Morgan has put in another planning application to extract over 1 million cubic metres of sand/sandstone from Bold Heath Quarry and replace with demolition and excavation materials (ie landfill).
Halton Greens have opposed this application because of: pollution - noise and dust; water table pollution issues; heavy traffic increase in an area bursting at the seams with such; methane emissions (effects re climate change;) and inconclusive research indicating problems re foetal development in local areas where landfill sites are sited.
Please send your objections to Melanie Hale c/o Town Planning Town Hall, Victoria Square St Helens, Merseyside WA10 1HP (Closing date 30th September)The application number is P/2008/0914
If you want a template letter please phone 0151 423 1692
Green Belt Pex Hill
There is a possibility that there will be an application to build 300 houses on green belt land in Cronton. If you're concerned please attend the meeting that's been arranged at the Fords Club behind the Hillcrest Hotel Cronton on Tuesday 30th September at 7pm
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Friday, 12 September 2008
Bus Service to be axed and an iconic bridge
It seems that Arriva are to axe their number 6 service Warrington - Widnes - Liverpool route next month.
They're justifying this by saying that the service is uneconomic with passenger numbers dropping.
Such a decision at a time when we ought to be encouraging public transport use, owing to issues such as climate change and ever rising fuel prices which will inevitably drive people out of their cars, seems extremely short sighted.
The hundreds of thousands of pounds spent by this council on promoting the second mersey crossing and the hundreds of millions to be spent on the bridge if the project goes ahead would be better spent on ensuring the development of cheap and efficient local public transport systems.
Local residents would be more likely to gain socially and economically from such developments than an iconic bridge were most of the traffic will be through traffic.
They're justifying this by saying that the service is uneconomic with passenger numbers dropping.
Such a decision at a time when we ought to be encouraging public transport use, owing to issues such as climate change and ever rising fuel prices which will inevitably drive people out of their cars, seems extremely short sighted.
The hundreds of thousands of pounds spent by this council on promoting the second mersey crossing and the hundreds of millions to be spent on the bridge if the project goes ahead would be better spent on ensuring the development of cheap and efficient local public transport systems.
Local residents would be more likely to gain socially and economically from such developments than an iconic bridge were most of the traffic will be through traffic.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Lorries in Halton View area
I did a quick sample of whether people felt there had been any significant reductions in HG traffic over the last couple of months in the area and the overwhelming response was that their hadn't been any changes.
So later in the month we will be contacting Halton Trading Standards to organise a Lorry Watch pilot scheme (hopefully covering at least BG Lane and Mmoorfield Rd).
Residents will be notified about the scheme and there'll be a request for volunteers.
If you'd like to be involved in the planning of the scheme please let me know. All are welcome!
Phone: 0151 423 16921
So later in the month we will be contacting Halton Trading Standards to organise a Lorry Watch pilot scheme (hopefully covering at least BG Lane and Mmoorfield Rd).
Residents will be notified about the scheme and there'll be a request for volunteers.
If you'd like to be involved in the planning of the scheme please let me know. All are welcome!
Phone: 0151 423 16921
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Lorry Watch - latest
Have had further contact with Halton Trading Standards re setting up a Lorry Watch scheme in the Halton View area. Although Halton is amalgamating with Warrington Trading Standards this year and resources are limited they are prepared to start a pilot run in September.
They'll be using systems already developed in other parts of the country although there will be some fine tuning of it to fit in with local conditions.
Halton Green Party will be funding the start up of the programme (ie providing leaflets) but after the pilot it's hoped that the Area Forum will financially back the scheme if it proves successful and there is sufficient community support.
In the meantime I'm going to contact Network Rail (as two railway bridges are on the routes the scheme will cover) to see if they might be able to cough up some funding.
Off to Wales for the next couple of weeks so probably this will be the last blog until end of August.
Happy holidays if your lucky enough to be able to get away!!
They'll be using systems already developed in other parts of the country although there will be some fine tuning of it to fit in with local conditions.
Halton Green Party will be funding the start up of the programme (ie providing leaflets) but after the pilot it's hoped that the Area Forum will financially back the scheme if it proves successful and there is sufficient community support.
In the meantime I'm going to contact Network Rail (as two railway bridges are on the routes the scheme will cover) to see if they might be able to cough up some funding.
Off to Wales for the next couple of weeks so probably this will be the last blog until end of August.
Happy holidays if your lucky enough to be able to get away!!
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Bennetts Lane update
Following a residents meeting last night re the two new applications for a medium and low secure unit and a low secure unit at Bennetts Lane it was felt important for residents to write in objections right away (by 24th July) to these two applications. Objections should be made seperately one for the medium and low secure unit and another for the low secure unit.
Possible points to use in your letter/email:
Re: Application no. 08/00367/COU
Proposed medium and low secure Mental Health unit Meadow Lane Bennett’s Lane Widnes WA8 0GT.
And
Re: Application no. 08/00368/COU
Proposed low secure Mental Health unit Meadow lane Bennetts Lane Widnes
· LACK OF CONSULTATION AND MISLEADING INFORMATION
The lack of consultation by Montpellier, Priory and currently Velocity Care with residents in the area in relation to the units usage.
From its inception in 2005 until January 2007 Montpellier the developer and the then care partner Priory, the provider have deliberately kept information about its end use from local residents, council members and officials. I understand that when the chief executive of the Priory Group was asked why this lack of consultation had occurred his response was that it was owing to commercial reasons.
By their actions it would seem that Montpellier, Priory, and the current applicant Velocity Care consider commercial reasons/profit making as being more important than ensuring that the local community was made fully aware and consulted about the building of such a unit in Bennett’s Lane Widnes.
Velocity Care appears to be continuing this trend of not being open and honest re the end use of the unit. Recently they have sent material out to residents which is misleading in that it does not specify the type of patients that will be treated at the unit. It would also seem to be the case that there is some doubt that Velocity Care will actually be operating the facility if the application is successful. This fact of not really knowing who the end provider is going to be, does not inspire confidence amongst residents about the development.
· INAPPROPRIATE SITING OF THE UNIT
The siting of any care facility at Bennetts Lane is inappropriate owing to its position within the confines of a Control of Major Accidents Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999 regulated area. This is particularly the case in relation to a secure unit when, given a major incident which necessitated the evacuation of patients, there would be obvious security issues.
· CONCERN AND ANXIETY EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS
Bennett’s Lane is sited within close proximity to an area which includes young families. Residents have been and continue to be affected by anxiety regarding the possible end use of the care facility. Initially following the original decision for the site to be developed as a care unit people were concerned that it was going to become a drug rehabilitation unit and then assurances were given that this was not the case. Following this, for a period of time, there were many rumours circulating about its use and anxiety levels among residents continued to be high.
Given this background and the fact that residents are now fully aware of the proposed end use of this facility ie C2a, anxiety and concern will continue to be experienced by residents living close to the unit and this should be viewed as a material planning consideration. It is obvious that there is a need for such units but it would seem that to operate one so close to a residential area is not appropriate.
· QUESTIONNING THE ASSERTION THAT THE UNIT IS NEEDED REGIONALLY
Velocity Care’s view about the need for this unit being related to regional demands appears to be at odds with the Five Boroughs Strategic Health Partnership's (local health planning agency) position whose view is that such a proposed unit is unnecessary.
These are just some ideas - all objections will be considered given that they are reasonable and realistic.
Address to write to:
Planning and Policy Manager
Environmental and Regulatory Services Dept
Rutland House, Halton Lea, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GW
email: dev.control@halton-borough.gov.org.uk
Hopefully planning committee councillors will reject both applications - but it will be important to contact/lobby councillors on this committee - names and phone nos can be obtained from members services section at Halton Borough Council (0151 424 2061)
Its a shame that it has come to this - Firstly the planning committee consisting of members from all parties should never have agreed to the site being used for a care facility in the first place if this was at all possible.
Secondly more digging for information should have taken place at the beginning when Montpellier and Priory were not coming clean about its end use. It seems that in other local authority areas there was greater questioning of Montpellier's and Priory's motives and that consequently planning permission was refused right from the word go.
Possible points to use in your letter/email:
Re: Application no. 08/00367/COU
Proposed medium and low secure Mental Health unit Meadow Lane Bennett’s Lane Widnes WA8 0GT.
And
Re: Application no. 08/00368/COU
Proposed low secure Mental Health unit Meadow lane Bennetts Lane Widnes
· LACK OF CONSULTATION AND MISLEADING INFORMATION
The lack of consultation by Montpellier, Priory and currently Velocity Care with residents in the area in relation to the units usage.
From its inception in 2005 until January 2007 Montpellier the developer and the then care partner Priory, the provider have deliberately kept information about its end use from local residents, council members and officials. I understand that when the chief executive of the Priory Group was asked why this lack of consultation had occurred his response was that it was owing to commercial reasons.
By their actions it would seem that Montpellier, Priory, and the current applicant Velocity Care consider commercial reasons/profit making as being more important than ensuring that the local community was made fully aware and consulted about the building of such a unit in Bennett’s Lane Widnes.
Velocity Care appears to be continuing this trend of not being open and honest re the end use of the unit. Recently they have sent material out to residents which is misleading in that it does not specify the type of patients that will be treated at the unit. It would also seem to be the case that there is some doubt that Velocity Care will actually be operating the facility if the application is successful. This fact of not really knowing who the end provider is going to be, does not inspire confidence amongst residents about the development.
· INAPPROPRIATE SITING OF THE UNIT
The siting of any care facility at Bennetts Lane is inappropriate owing to its position within the confines of a Control of Major Accidents Hazards (COMAH) Regulations 1999 regulated area. This is particularly the case in relation to a secure unit when, given a major incident which necessitated the evacuation of patients, there would be obvious security issues.
· CONCERN AND ANXIETY EXPERIENCED BY RESIDENTS
Bennett’s Lane is sited within close proximity to an area which includes young families. Residents have been and continue to be affected by anxiety regarding the possible end use of the care facility. Initially following the original decision for the site to be developed as a care unit people were concerned that it was going to become a drug rehabilitation unit and then assurances were given that this was not the case. Following this, for a period of time, there were many rumours circulating about its use and anxiety levels among residents continued to be high.
Given this background and the fact that residents are now fully aware of the proposed end use of this facility ie C2a, anxiety and concern will continue to be experienced by residents living close to the unit and this should be viewed as a material planning consideration. It is obvious that there is a need for such units but it would seem that to operate one so close to a residential area is not appropriate.
· QUESTIONNING THE ASSERTION THAT THE UNIT IS NEEDED REGIONALLY
Velocity Care’s view about the need for this unit being related to regional demands appears to be at odds with the Five Boroughs Strategic Health Partnership's (local health planning agency) position whose view is that such a proposed unit is unnecessary.
These are just some ideas - all objections will be considered given that they are reasonable and realistic.
Address to write to:
Planning and Policy Manager
Environmental and Regulatory Services Dept
Rutland House, Halton Lea, Runcorn, Cheshire WA7 2GW
email: dev.control@halton-borough.gov.org.uk
Hopefully planning committee councillors will reject both applications - but it will be important to contact/lobby councillors on this committee - names and phone nos can be obtained from members services section at Halton Borough Council (0151 424 2061)
Its a shame that it has come to this - Firstly the planning committee consisting of members from all parties should never have agreed to the site being used for a care facility in the first place if this was at all possible.
Secondly more digging for information should have taken place at the beginning when Montpellier and Priory were not coming clean about its end use. It seems that in other local authority areas there was greater questioning of Montpellier's and Priory's motives and that consequently planning permission was refused right from the word go.
Monday, 14 July 2008
UK Anti Incineration Petition
In the Halton area there are now 3 planning applications for energy from waste incinerators in the pipeline.
Such incineratos mean more dangerous toxins being released in an area already overpopulated with dangerous chemical emissions.
It's important that as many people express their objections to any efw incinerators whereever sited. This is particularly the case when there are now other recylcing systems which do not rely on incineration which are able to deal with house hold waste and are marginally more cost effective than incinerators.
If you want to object log on to the PM's website http:/petitions.pm.gov.uk/UK-Incineration/
Such incineratos mean more dangerous toxins being released in an area already overpopulated with dangerous chemical emissions.
It's important that as many people express their objections to any efw incinerators whereever sited. This is particularly the case when there are now other recylcing systems which do not rely on incineration which are able to deal with house hold waste and are marginally more cost effective than incinerators.
If you want to object log on to the PM's website http:/petitions.pm.gov.uk/UK-Incineration/
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Bennetts Lane Unit - have we been here before?
Velocity Healthcare has put in two new applications for secure care and treatment units for people with mental illness. One is for a unit which would cater for low secure mentally ill people and the other for low secure and medium secure mentally ill patients. So we're back to square one!
There is to be a meeting at Moorfield Sports and Social club Moorfield Rd on Monday14th July at 7pm to find out more about the situation and discuss what we can do as individuals and as a community re objecting to the new proposals.
Obviously the more residents attending the better as it will send out a signal to the council and Velocity Healthcare that the vast majority of residents continue to be opposed to the development. Please try to make it!
The Green Party's position is that although there is an obvious need for such units its inappropriate that any sort of care unit should be operating on the site at Bennetts Lane because of its proximity to chemical plants. The original decision by the council to allow such a development there of any sort of care facility was to say the least questionnable.
There is to be a meeting at Moorfield Sports and Social club Moorfield Rd on Monday14th July at 7pm to find out more about the situation and discuss what we can do as individuals and as a community re objecting to the new proposals.
Obviously the more residents attending the better as it will send out a signal to the council and Velocity Healthcare that the vast majority of residents continue to be opposed to the development. Please try to make it!
The Green Party's position is that although there is an obvious need for such units its inappropriate that any sort of care unit should be operating on the site at Bennetts Lane because of its proximity to chemical plants. The original decision by the council to allow such a development there of any sort of care facility was to say the least questionnable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)