2002 Inquiries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Richard Ward PINS Reference 3253194; 3253230; and 3253232 Former Parkside Colliery Inquiries 1. First Inquiry 24 January 1996 Government Office for Merseyside Ref: TF/MTF/669, Date 24/01/1996 SHC Ref P.1294/068/RJM/DAR, UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY, date 24/01/1996 2. Second UDP Inquiry 10 November 1997 UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2 3. Third UPD Inquiry, date 25 July 2002 Report PNW/5150/219/25 and 26, Swayfields Motorway M6 Service Station and Deputy Prime Minister Decision, date 25 July 2002, Reference: APPM0655N00000199-200 Compiled by Richard Ward, October 2020 1. First Inquiry 24 January 1996 Government Office for Merseyside Ref: TF/MTF/669, Date 24/01/1996 SHC Ref P.1294/068/RJM/DAR, UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY, date 24/01/1996 MspeclO"S Reponon' the objections to 51.Helens UDP page 208 Pan II; Area Policlej' --_._-_._--,,--~.-----'----_._------------------, ~-- . '..- .:-.~.-:..:.:.._:..-..... ". '" ". -::'>.:": ;~!~:i:,~~.'g~;:::i·~~E~~::, OBiEGtlON'NO~.. .5143 GO-Mi' 5330:Bnt1$h traIPro~rtyBOWd" . Summary of objections' 12.f ...,'.i ._T,hepoHcy relates-to a sitewitttin theGreen~~lt andqontljcts with thenatiooal plafining guidanCe given in P'PG2.The policy should be deleted \51~3J . ii. .The 4fea allocated ,under..this .policy.sh6uldbe,extendedto. include the.open landtietiVeen. Winwick Road and the colliery buildings to.create ..a.developmentsite,o~jOha, in or~er for the site to exploit itS strategiC position \5330). Inspector' s consider~tions and conclusions 12.2 .. The o~jection madebyG,O~Mhas been overtaken by lhe.publicatio,n ofther,evi~ PPG2GreenBelts(CD103B). Section 3 andAi1ne~ C of the PpqgivetheoPJNfWllityfor _devet-opment.pla~sto include poli(:ies for limited infilling otredev~lopmentof maj~~e~is.ting.;; dev,cloped-siieS;"subjci;TtOce~ijrcfiteria. Consequently ,-1l;:onsider'1hctpott9Y i~.1'\O'W·m:-::-,,-· - . accon:lance with current national planning·guidance. 12.3 . TUrningto the oQ.iection~adeby British Coal, the.!iite lies within the GreenBelt, as established in 1983inthe.GBLP. J;he colliery has since closed and the plant and buildings demolished and associated hardstandings, circulation areas and railway sidings largely cleared. Pri9r to the' publicatipn of the.revised PPG2"(GDI 03B),th,ere.was little;gtJidance~olocal planning authorities as to hOw to.deal with large areas Qfpreviously developed land in the Gr~en Belt, both ina policy. document or in responsewanapplicati()n;: 12.4 Guidance in the'revisedPPG2is a pragmaticreswn~etol!problembeing faced by some ·..loca1 planning .authQritieswnere there are large, redundant.installations ~here.aneW usejsregarded- as necessary and acceptable. A .redun<1antcolliery,fanS.~ithinJbeprovisions of this .new guidance. The.Council might have'decide<Lt0remove the.siteJTOrtltheGreen Belt altogether and tteatitas an inset; but this course could have led 10 a weakeniIlg Of the strategic aim of the Green Beltj":vuln~.ra~le ar~s. The gui<iancecootained in Annex C of theiPPGoffers the' opportunity for the iocal planning authoritY to actively: promote new development on such sites where it would achieve an environmental improvement, but subject to the proviso.that the overalLcharacter and aims of the.QreenBeltwouldQot be prejudiced or compromised. In other words, the new guidance allows for policies in development plans which would permit infJlling or redevelopment under specific circumstances, which might otherwise need to be treated as exceptions or departures from the development plan, but the Green Belt context of the site and its surroundings should not be pr~iudiced or weakened. 12;5 Annex C gives advice on how such sites should he defined. It is very clear that the boundary should show only the present extent of development and, where new building .' is proposed, this should not extend heyond the 'footprint' of the original buildings excluding areas of hardstanding or open spaces betweenf.juildings: •.The site as defined on the Proposals Map is extensive, it includes the operational areas of the colliery, th~ tipped areas and the hardstandings, stocking areas. parkingar&dsandacces~:ro~ds. It is my view that, hearing in mind the guidance contained in Anne~ Citmay;got be appropriate to permit new development. over all of this area, in view of the fact that a relatively small proportion of the site was covered hy built development. I consider that a proper interpretation of Annex C ~?~Idp~~rnit only a relatively small proportion of the site to be occupied by ne\\,\6.Ujldi:~gsc' Jy'eIlJU~~ingf?~theiIlterpretation of the clause which would allow more building 'where'the OV~ral~Vlsu"dimRa~lmaybe less (ie allowing for the demolition of the pit~headt?\Versand LeI~v~t.i~g·conveyors). The. remaind~r. should be used for landscaping orrerurned to agri.culture or used to{f6restry; rises which are cofTipatiblewith the Greeo""Belt. 12.6 The objector's view is that this is an opportunity for a m~jor r~velo}Jmem scheme, alinost regardless of the amount of built development which existed previously ':Jh~ schemes outlined i,l the supporting written statement'i show development over ml.lchofthJ! old operational area, including hardstandings, stocking areas. car parks and cir~ulation areas, le~vinglinle aro,und the~riphery for the necessary landscaping to ameliorate the visual impacr.of the new scheme .•...The rationale for the enlarged area would therefore seem to be to allow for this landscape planting around and in addition to the redevelopment of the actual collid)"sJ teo . 12.7 The objector says that a scheme as large as this is necessary to justify the expenditure needed to clear away the old colliery and to bring the site into a viable new use . .This may be so, but Paragraph C4(a) ofPPG2 indicates that the redevelopment should. if . possible; have less (my emphasis) impact on the openness of the Green BeJt than the original sc~el1le.. \Vith.out a,detail~ application before me it is nOt possible to asses the full impact of thescbeme:{)utJiOed .tly-me~()~ect(lF'~·~mis51ons,bLJ~.it •.wolJlg:ClearJYLOelIlore ••-. extensive than the erstwhile colliery. The commercial or eCOrlomic calculations cannot be taken as justification.forthe.UDP tQ incorporate a POliq;wbich" g()~s.beyondnatiog~1 \plannillgPQlicie~, as expressed in "'nnex C of PPGi ··.There:IS not theseope toulke "the "liberal interpretation!! sought by the objector. 12.8 .. Ftlmherw()r~,tq~,~~~ agJoi(lingthe Old(;dlli~~compns~.s;gO()tlqJ~li~:~gricUi~r(ll; land .VJhiCrflOli<:.ies~9 ..andENYI4seek to .••.proteclJ:r'9I1l~e'(eloPl1leit.t: .•.lr~~~)gIlise tll(l.tin' th~·.Mer~eyside ar~atlle~7 is ~ye~"y:h~ghpr?pQJ11pn'gt:g?odq~ality. ~gr-tf~ltUF(ltland,.9uilap.d ofthisqll~lityisa ..nat.iol1al.res9.~fce(lCl<iit~J()s~.cann9tb¢ n~gai<1edonly in'this fairly limited locaJcontext. Also. sQme of the land, particularly that toilienorth of Newton Park Farm is~leva~gand ¢ofl.spieuous in ,the landsca~, which would emphasise the imposing impact development site would have on the chardcter and appearance of the sutrQundillgGreen Belt If a ease is made for· the larger scheme it should be regarded as an exception which will have 10 be treated asa departure from th.e development plan (see paragraph 3.3 of PPG2). RE(X)M\~ENPATION 12.9 No modifications be made to the UDP in response to these o~iection~. ________ ~ ~, ._. L ._ 2. Second UDP Inquiry 10 November 1997 UDP POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2 t I ! I I i i l·· PART II: AREA POLICIES I POLICY AP1.2 PARKSIDE COLLIERY MODIFICATION MOD/96/AP1.2 Objectors: 204/1011 F Whittaker; 205/1012 Mrs G M Stott: 207/1014 Mr & Mrs Fletcher; 208/1015 Mr & Mrs Lodge; 209/1016 Mr & Mrs J G Tully; 210/1017 S Lawrenson; 211/1018 Mr & Mrs B Molyneux; 210/1019 D M & A R Critchley; 213/1020 M N D Coleman; 214/1021 WB Steele; 215/1022 J C Hodkinson; 216/1023 Mr & Mrs Boulton; 217/1024 Mr & Mrs Orchard; 218/1025Mr & Mrs Morley; 219/1026 R F Nelson; 220/1027 Mrs M Bridge; 221/1028 Mr & Mrs C Thompson; 222/1029 Frank K Bryce; 223/1030 Mr & Mrs A H Davis; 224/1031 Mrs A M 0'- Carswell; 225/1032 Mrs Enid Ryan; 226/1033 C Harwood & M Barlow; 227/103~Mr F J Winnard; 228/1035 Mrs F Craven; 229/1036 Alan W Gaudern; 230/1037 Emma M GauQern; 231/1038 Angela M Gaudern; 232/1039 P Boyce; 233/1040 Mrs Lilian de Looze; 234/1041 Mr & Mrs C Sharpe; 235/1042 J H Robinson; 236/1043 Mr J A Jones; 237/1044 Miss H L Jones; 238/1045 Mrs H T Jones; 239/1046 Ken Horn; 240/1047 Linda Horn; 241/1048 M J Kirkham; 242/1049 Mrs B Scholes; 243/1050 Mrs H E Skinner; 244/1051 J S & E Talbot; 245/1052 Miss R M Littler; 246/1053 Mr & Mrs R A Fairhurst; 247/1054 Mr & Mrs Lawton; 248/1055 Mr P Dickinson & Ms A Saunders; 249/1056 J & S Russell; 250/1057 D & L A Harrison; 252/1059 Mrs GRimmer; 253/1060 R & J Rimmer; 254/1061 Mr M J Lowe: 255/1062 Mr & Mrs Lowe; 256/1063 Mr & Mrs J G Knowles; 257/1064 S & K Jones; 258/1065 Mr & Mrs S 0 Cross; 260/1067 Mr & .Mrs Boulton: 261/1068 John & Mary Raven; 262/1069 Mr & Mrs Kirk; 263/1070 M F Talbot; 265/1073 Mr J Park; 266/1074 E M Williams; 267/1075 R & S Stamp; 269/1076 Winwick Parish Council; 269/1077 R J J Lowe; 271/1087 J M Hayes; 272/1088 Mr E Pownall; 273/1089 C L & J A Senior; 274/1090 Mrs R Garside; 275/1091 B H Rhodes; 278/1094 Warrington Borough Council; 279/1095 P K & H L Cunliffe; 280/1096 Mrs J M .