Gullivers World wins right to fell Ancient Woodlands

Warrington councilor insinuated local residents should of expected the development and in similar words *they had it coming to them*. I advise he's ill educated about the matter as local residents bought houses next to ancient woodland and Gulliver's World was meant to be an Adventure Playground - it has exceeded it's mandate and Warrington Council made decisions based on temporary recession as though it is permanent! We've never had permanent recession and how bad is it if Holiday Chalets are being built? That does not compute, the only thing that does is the residents had 700+ objections against with less than  5 for the build, we didn't have a chance to feedback our comments......

You can't even object to an Ombudsman ref the data used or how decisions were made - SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROCESS designed to get these things through!

Warrington Borough Council have granted Gullivers the right to destroy the habitat of Squirrels, Rabbits, Birds and Bats. In it's place a Chalet complex will be built. Local residents were given no protection last time from LOUD roller-coasters so likely same result delivered this time. Local Warrington Guardian newspaper applauded the announcement for the low skilled jobs that will be created.

WE CAN HEAR THE TREES BEING FELLED NOW!

If in the UK we can't retain our own woodlands as part of pushing back on climate change WHY should we expect Brazil and other countries with rainforest to retain there's. I fear tor the future of our planet and the destruction human race is creating for short termism money making rackets.

THE PLANET IS HEATING UP - and no one is prepared to stop it and you can bet your local GOV not to help with these serious matters.

Planning Proposal Status

GULLIVERS WORLD PROPOSED EXPANSION 2011

Curret Status: STAGE 0

STAGE 0: PROPOSAL

- Any objections or petitions at this stage WILL need to be resubmitted at STAGE 2.
- Update: Due to primarily lack of finance and recent views from the community WBC advises: The strategy is likely to be reviewed and updated in the near future and any views expressed to date on the 2009 strategy will be considered and taken into account.
- Please donate: At http://www.savesankeyvalleypark.com to provide additional protection for our park.
STAGE 1: THE SUBMISSION
- The applicant makes a formal application, decision made whether to accept.
STAGE 2 CONSULTATIONS
- The planning officer will write to some or all neighbours of the scheme, offering the opportunity to object.
Note: A request has been made for all residents within 200m or greater to receive letters.
- The planning officer will put all the details of the application onto the Council Planning Portal.
Note: A request has been made for a at least a full page advert in the Warringon Guardian.
STAGE 3 THE DECISION
- Objections assesed.
- Scheme is rejected or approved with conditions or approved.
PUBLIC INQUIRY
- The community may request a public inquiry. The public can submit evidence and listen to evidence by other parties.

To check on planning status: http://212.248.237.123/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display
In Location enter: Gullivers World
Click Search

What to include in your objection letter & contacts

Individuals are encouraged to write their own letters in their own words and send them to the powers that be. Each individual letter equals one objection. Only send your objection letters when we reach STAGE 2 CONSULTATIONS.

Individual letters should contain certain information, for example:

How the proposed changes will impact you and your family?
How strongly you object?
How will they affect the environment (polution, traffic, fumes, noise, litter, light pollution etc.)?
Any health and safety issues?
Alternative proposal suggestions?
How often do you or your family use the park?
How do you believe the changes will impact on nature?
How do you believe the changes will impact the future?
Are you happy or not with the way the council is spending the tax payers (your) money?
Are you happy or not with the loss of public amenity (the park)?


MOST IMPORTANTLY: Request that your objection letter is presented to the planning committee and is taken in to consideration when making their final decision.

So come on everyone, write your individual letters, if your husband or wife has already sent one, there is nothing to stop you from writing one as well. You might object in different ways and that would get 2 votes! Get the kids to do one also. Whatever you do, avoid copying and pasting the same letter.

Send your objections here:
Planning and Development Peter Taylor ptaylor@warrington.gov.uk
Cllr David Earl: dearl@warrington.gov.uk
Stefan Krizanac: Councilzsk@hotmail.com
MP Helen Jones: Jonesh@parliament.uk

Postal Address:
Development Control, Warrington Borough Council
Environment Services Directorate
New Town House
Buttermarket Street
Warrington
WA1 2NH

eMail - Requesting a Letter for all local residents etc.

Sent to: To ptaylor@warrington.gov.uk, dearl@warrington.gov.uk, councilzsk@hotmail.com, hjones@warrington.gov.uk

Hello Peter

I have some points I would like to raise with reference to the resident consultation process / planning process. Can you please ensure this is read by the people concerned in the Warrington planning dept. and advise who this is passed onto. If the MP and coucillors can ensure that the requests, where possible are met, thankyou.

Residents Letter:
- If this proposal enters the next phase of the planning stage. I would like to request that letters are sent to all residents concerned within 200mtrs (or a greater radius unless there's some form of restriction on this), of all aspects of the proposed developments.
- I would like the letter as a minimum to inform the residents of the target areas of the plans and most importantly whether public access without fee is allowed into these targeted development areas.
- I would like the letter to state the full costs of the project funded by WBC.
- I would like the letter to state the impact to wildlife and their habitat.
- I would like the letter to state the policies that currently protect each area of the targeted development, if you use policy reference Nos then please define a brief glossary to each policy ref No.
- Please add anything extra as required.

Request for Planning Consultation Window Increase:
- In addition I have read information from a member of the SaveSankeyValleyPark group, that the planning stage is only a 14 day window. This would give residents from reading the letter 14 days to object. If this is the case, then my view is that this window is not wide enough. This is based on various factors such as a typical holiday is 14 days, or sometimes 21 days. Due to the magnitude of the proposals I request that this planning window be increased to the maximum possible number of days so a full informed opinion can obtained from the community. This would deliver integrity to the planning process.

Publicise to Town:
- Due to the magnitude of proposed change, I also request in addition to letters to the local community that the council fully publicise the development plans via Warrington Guardian, with at least a full page advert. The cost of this is insignificant against the proposed spend.

Sankey Valley Park Proposed Sell Off / Takeover by GW

Sankey Valley Park may as well not exist if WBC give it the nod. A great loss for everyone. Lets hope common sense prevails as it should. The Woods, Bewsey Meadows, Green Way would be negatively affected for many residents and wildlife habitat destroyed. The population is growing, so is the wildlife and so are the users of the park. A recent walk over the affected parts on a Bank Holiday showed many dogs being walked, families out and plenty of people / families cycling. This park must be protected!

Some acceptable improvements would be welcome: Increased attention to litter, dog fouling, graffiti, vegetation, habitat management and usage of the canal for canoeing would be excellent.

CLR JUDITH WHEELER Great Sankey advised: By its location, Gulliver’s impinges on the park. We know it wishes to develop a caravan/camping area on its land. This will have to be submitted as a planning application and until this happens we do not know exactly what it entails and how it will impact on residents.

We are committed to ensuring that any developments are appropriate to the park and will not be detrimental to it or impact negatively on our residents.

COMMUNITY: Caravan & camping park: Will destroy wildlife habitat for herons, owls, bats, blue tits, hunting birds & squirrels etc. It will remove current / future public access to the amenity permanently. The new road to the camping will create noise, fumes, safety issues, asbo issues & potential health problems. The ancient woods will be decimated and be of no use to wildlife, some of which is special to the Warrington community and I think WBC. It will open up the path for roller coaster rides to be errected if the business changes strategy for the land area in the future, these are very noisy and do not fit with a residential or wildlife park.

Objections to Past & Proposed Downgrades to Sankey Valley Park

Commercial Selloff / Development of Sankey Valley Park:

SANKEY VALLEY PARK - IS OWNED by the people, USED by the people and FOR the people. DO NOT forget the animals that have no voice, we’re all responsible for them as well.

HISTORY:
Initially when I moved to the Callands area the business operating adjacent to Sankey Valley park / residential properties, was called a "Childrens Adventure Playground" by the owners. Designed for small toddlers to enjoy a day out in what is called Gullivers World. I've never been to the park myself but it was noiseless and none invasive and socially acceptable to the residents.

Subsequently and suddenly the business decided to change its strategy and opt for what has now become, Roller Coaster World.
OBJECTION TO PREVIOUS ROLLER COASTER CONSTRUCTION:
The implementation of this was unlawful:
- THE BUSINESS: Erected roller coasters over the winter period without planning permission. Therefore the surrounding community was not consulted. I wonder why they didn't do this, most certainly because there would have been too many objections and the planning permission would have been refused accordingly.
- THE COUNCIL: Sent letters to a very small sub set of residents within the area of the business (my house is approx 300m? from the coasters), advising that a meeting (which never happened) would be arranged to discuss this. Incidentally many neighbours, closer to the business never got a letter!
- THE COUNCIL: Gave unlawful retrospective planning permission to the business without vis-a-vis resident consultation!!

WHERE'S THIS LEFT THE RESIDENTS:
- SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE: Unfortunately that has now left a situation whereby local residents backing onto the business are CONSTANTLY barraged with, rattling roller coasters, generator rumbling noise, hydraulic hissing and screaming children. I'm genuinely absolutely saddened for my fellow residents who live much closer to this Roller Coaster Park, their lives must be intolerable living so close (some must be 75m away). Their enjoyment in their back gardens must have been permanently destroyed. They've been let down by the council.
- COMMERCIAL ASBO: If this was a resident or gang of teenagers routinely making lots of noise and disturbance they'd be given an ASBO. What is the council going to do about this?
- LOSS OF FAITH & TRUST with COUNCIL: With the way this whole commercial park change was implemented I and my fellow residents have lost trust and faith with the council to perform its duties morally, lawfully and in a socially acceptable manner.
- DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY: Due to the recurring noise pollution it is my belief that my property will be more difficult to sell, unless I sell it below market value. Should it be me who bares this cost?
- WHAT MUST HAPPEN NOW: The council have a chance to redeem itself with the tax paying community, steps must be taken to rectify the existing anti social noise issues before we go any further with any other proposals. Councils need to understand that the roller coasters are in a residential environment, it's not like Alton Towers and Orlando where there's significant distances to residential communities, or like Blackpool where the majority of properties are B&B's geared to the theme park industry. The business has gone beyond it's initial scope. The council must ensure that proper planning process occurs and when it doesn’t rectifications to the existing business MUST be implemented.

- MY RECOMMENDATIONS: The business in question clearly has access to significant financial facilities...Removal of recurring noise pollution is needed to ensure the business and council planning is socially responsible:
- OPTION 1: SOUNDPROOF the COASTERS & Generators.
- OPTION 2: ENCLOSE the COASTERS & Generators similar to other rides found in Alton Towers, Blackpool and Orlando etc...
- OPTION 3: REMOVE the COASTERS & Generators.
If proper planning had been implemented with tax paying residents, Option 1 & 2 could have been implemented right from the outset, leading to better relations with all.

ENSURING SANKEY VALLEY PARK SURVIVAL: Placing Sankey Valley park into a form of trust removing the ability of the council to sell it off or develop it in ways which are socially unacceptable to the residential community. Some of the proposals we've had deal with from the business / council have been utterly ludicrous. Re-enactment of The Blitz (bombing noises all day long) and helicopter landing pads / rides all adjacent to residents back gardens. The council are making residents lives worrisome and a misery by throwing these intolerable suggestions at us. They’re also wasting our time whereby we have to protest against the obvious unacceptable propositions.

I have heard many other residents accusing the council of receiving back handers. I can fully understand why residents have such feelings and have come to this conclusion as the planning process in the past has been abused, has clearly had shortcuts taken and lack of due diligence and unlawful implementation. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer would want to follow this up on behalf of the residents. We must find out what is going wrong within the council to ensure lessons can be learned and all staff trained where needed. Clearly an investigation would be needed unless rectifications of the existing noise problems are solved.

OBJECTIONS TO CURRENT NEW PROPOSALS:

- THE PARK LAND: Is Bequeathed by the tax payer to the council for park land maintenance. The council now thinks that they have a right to develop this impacting the environment and tax paying residents. Come on, the tax payer has paid for this park land and we won't let it go.

NEW ROAD - NOT ACCEPTABLE:
- POLLUTION (NOISE & FUMES):
- Fumes of coaches & cars adjacent to a back garden.
- Noise pollution again, right in your back garden, there's no escape, arrrrrrg.
- Health problems maybe created.
- IMPACT to WILDLIFE and ANIMALS:
- Kestrels, Blue Tits, robins, doves, woodpeckers, blackbirds, geese, ducks etc. are all users of the trees and fields that would be affected.
- Butterflies who breed and flourish within the targeted road area.
- Domesticated pets, cats & dogs that use the land for hunting or walking.
- People who use the land for dog walking and leisure activities.
- Hedgehogs, voles, squirrels and countless other animals that use the land.
- The wildlife population is growing year over year on this land; reducing parkland environment would have a negative impact on the existing animals and its future growth, permanently.
- SAFETY: for children and domestic animals
- Children could be killed by vehicles in what is perceived as parkland.
- Dogs off lead could be killed by vehicles in what is parkland.
- Cats maybe killed by vehicles in what is parkland, I personally know of a neighbours cat that goes over our fence to use the parkland which would be used as a road.
- Ditto all other animals.
- DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY: Due to the additional recurring noise / fume pollution it is my belief that my property will be more difficult to sell, unless I sell it further below market value. Should it be me who bares this cost?
TRAFFIC:
- The Callands / Westbrook area is already affected significantly by the Roller Coaster land traffic, particularly at peak times.
ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: The gravel road would attract kids with motorbikes.
JOBS:
- The jobs created are small number of poor quality, temporary jobs and they send you home if there's no work for the day.
THE FUTURE:
- The tax paying residents are a growing community, we must ensure the children and wildlife of the future have at least somewhere tolerable to live and use.
- If the local population were to grow 1% a year, in 1000 years the population will have grown 10 fold, that's discounting compound increments. We must protect the park and ensure that the park land barrier exists between commercial / residential housing.
- I suspect in the long term future, due to growth that housing will become apartment blocks, where would those people go for recreation if the park land is reduced over time. Let the council and businesses start behaving socially, responsibly and stop being greedy and wasteful with what we have.

DEVELOPMENT OF additional LAND - NOT ACCEPTABLE:
- The owner has directly told a local resident that she has no care for the residents and is only interested in making money. When she said this to the person she did not know it was a local resident. Can you trust such a person to be socially responsible? I think not.
- Any development of additional land for further commercial activity is not acceptable. This is because I don't believe that either the business or council can be trusted to manage the potential of redevelopment of the land in a lawfully or socially acceptable manner. This is based on the past history of aforementioned erection of roller coasters without planning permission and other ludicrous proposals etc…

- If subsequent build of further roller coasters occurs (due to poor demand / usage) on for example what would be camp land under the new proposal, there’s a strong chance it could mentally affect you by creating depression.

MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CURRENT PROPOSAL:
- The majority of the community as a whole are against this, for many of the reasons I've stated above. This is not for the betterment of the local community more for GW increasing profits and resultant tax collection increases. Therefore I recommend the council to think outside the sell off box and get even more efficient and outright reject the GW proposal and fix your past mistakes.

I challenge the local council to examine their vision of the future long term 1000, 2000, 5000 years from now. You may think it sounds silly....I'm sorry it isn't, those times will come to pass and you must cater for the future and the magnitude of residents that will exist (look at Japan) etc.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3034_003.html is this not better than a roller coaster park next to a residential environment? Be inspired!

 - Will the permanent land lost here be of significant detrimental affect to the distant future as well as the current environment? Obviously take into account population growth (wildlife & people) > over time!
- Is it really beneficial to the local residents (current & future) to have a sprawling roller coaster land, hammering the noises into the homes of the unlucky who live next the the coasters.
- Would the planning dept. like to live next to this constant noise and fume land themselves?- Road expansion should occur on Cromwell avenue to cater for future Warrington generic traffic, it can be done.
- Is it not in the best interest of everyone now & future to lock in the park to a trust, taking away the temptation for you to sell and develop negatively for quick cash gains.
- Hard as it is, does the council not now need to intelligently manage it's own resources, unfortunately that may mean further changes to your employees, part time work, (as per California gov employees), cut pay ...etc. I know your currently making staff redundant, it's sad I've been their on several occasions...but it does happen in the private sector.
- Manage the boom bust cycles (economic bubbles) better with less pay rises in booms and expenditures, save for the bust don't use the Gordon Brown philosophy of spend, spend and more spend.
- If need be let the grass grow longer in parks, let the property bubble deflate, collect bins less, hold off projects that cost money, please don't buy any more iPads and if need be sell them on eBay and use other methods such as 1 central computer in a conference room?

Power to the Community and Protect Rights for the People - Current & Future!!

Disclaimer: The  information and perceptions contained within this objection letter does not constitute professional advice. Whilst I make every effort to maintain the accuracy of the information within this letter, I shall not be liable for any loss, effect, reaction or subsequent result of the use of any information displayed within this letter. The readers of this information assume full responsibility for using the information. It is recommended that you always seek the advice of a lawyer. The legal information supplied only applies to England and Wales.