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.