Parkside development is back on track

St Helens Star: Council leader Barrie Grunewald (right) with Langtree chief executive John Downes at the Parkside site Council leader Barrie Grunewald (right) with Langtree chief executive John Downes at the Parkside site

PLANS to redevelop a former colliery into a major rail freight terminal is back on the agenda after the council announced proposals to acquire the site.

For several years Parkside has been kicked into the long grass as those for and against the development battled it out and political promises evaporated.

However, following a joint venture between the council and the property, investment and development company Langtree, they have acquired the freehold and will start work on a development strategy to secure the long term economic benefit of the site.

Council leader Barrie Grunewald, who made jobs and the economy his top priority in his leadership pledge, said: “When I became leader of the council I stated that I was firmly committed to delivering Parkside and believed that I would have failed if there was no movement on this site within 18 months.

“Parkside offers the potential to create thousands of new jobs. This is a prime development site in the north west and offers a unique destination sitting alongside the M6 and the West Coast mainline.

“It is hoped to reinstate the rail link with the mainline to create an inter-modal freight centre.”

Although a timescale has not been placed on the project the council insist that a planning application could be submitted as early as this year.

Cllr Grunewald continued: “The Parkside project is now firmly under way and we are all committed to make this a success and deliver the much needed jobs for St Helens. Parkside will become one of the largest projects in Britain and it is one of the most significant in terms of regeneration in the north west.

“The council has received many inquiries regarding development opportunities in recent years but the former owners have not taken the site forward.

“The council worked closely with Langtree on the development of the Saints stadium and I am optimistic that this new partnership will bring new jobs to the site.”

John Downes chief executive of Langtree added: “The former Parkside Colliery site is a tremendous development opportunity and we are delighted to have joined forces with the council to bring the site back into beneficial use. ”

The news was also welcomed by St Helens North MP Dave Watts, who said: “This is a major development and the job opportunities will be fantastic.

“With the jobs and investment in the local area it’s a win-win situation.”

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Thu 9 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

I thought they had no money? Can't shell out they extra 250k for another wheelie bin though instead of the 17 bags we have to screw around with.

St Thomas square is looking good though......
I thought they had no money? Can't shell out they extra 250k for another wheelie bin though instead of the 17 bags we have to screw around with. St Thomas square is looking good though...... barrie timpson
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Thu 9 Jan 14

kjd161 says...

Passed St Thomas square a couple of hours ago. There were 6 blokes on there, 2 united utility vans, and a couple of cars. Another false dawn? We'll see.
Passed St Thomas square a couple of hours ago. There were 6 blokes on there, 2 united utility vans, and a couple of cars. Another false dawn? We'll see. kjd161
  • Score: -1

2:18pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature.
The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed.
With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on!
Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature. The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed. With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on! Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 1

2:58am Fri 10 Jan 14

i5tola says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature.
The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed.
With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on!
The last time this was done, people were just thinking of their pathetic little selves and the time they have left. This could give jobs for a hundred years to come. Those Jobe will provide, in turn, more jobs. This and other projects like them, make the future. Even if you don't have or want a future there are many young people who do. The price of the future? Some inconvenience, lots of work, and cash, lots of cash.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature. The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed. With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on![/p][/quote]The last time this was done, people were just thinking of their pathetic little selves and the time they have left. This could give jobs for a hundred years to come. Those Jobe will provide, in turn, more jobs. This and other projects like them, make the future. Even if you don't have or want a future there are many young people who do. The price of the future? Some inconvenience, lots of work, and cash, lots of cash. i5tola
  • Score: 5

8:54am Fri 10 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

I don't live in Newton but in fairness to the people who you deride, they are only protecting their standard of living, environment and house prices. I expect that you would do exactly the same Bill and i5tola if someone was to plan to rip up the fields around your house and stick a huge 50m high warehouse and dozens of train lines yards from your back door.

The last plans for that development didn't just include the old footprint of Parkside it also included a lot of the farm land around it. This land has stood fallow since it stopped being farmed, has become wooded and does now have a fair bit of wildlife on it. In effect it is no different to Bold or Sutton reclaimed land which are now nice areas for local people to enjoy.

The number of LOCAL jobs created by such a development is as debatable as the environmental impact. Hopefully there will be a sensible debate and the final design will be one that maximises local jobs but minimises impact on the people and surrounding area.

Name calling and fanaticising about the number of jobs created without seeing the plans is out of order when you live 10 miles away and won't be affected. What is wrong with the people of newton not wanting to live in the middle of a trading estate?

The point raised above by Barrie should not be lost, where has the money come from for the council to decide to become property speculators when other services are being chopped and will this go the same way as some of the other much trumpeted major initiatives of recent months?
I don't live in Newton but in fairness to the people who you deride, they are only protecting their standard of living, environment and house prices. I expect that you would do exactly the same Bill and i5tola if someone was to plan to rip up the fields around your house and stick a huge 50m high warehouse and dozens of train lines yards from your back door. The last plans for that development didn't just include the old footprint of Parkside it also included a lot of the farm land around it. This land has stood fallow since it stopped being farmed, has become wooded and does now have a fair bit of wildlife on it. In effect it is no different to Bold or Sutton reclaimed land which are now nice areas for local people to enjoy. The number of LOCAL jobs created by such a development is as debatable as the environmental impact. Hopefully there will be a sensible debate and the final design will be one that maximises local jobs but minimises impact on the people and surrounding area. Name calling and fanaticising about the number of jobs created without seeing the plans is out of order when you live 10 miles away and won't be affected. What is wrong with the people of newton not wanting to live in the middle of a trading estate? The point raised above by Barrie should not be lost, where has the money come from for the council to decide to become property speculators when other services are being chopped and will this go the same way as some of the other much trumpeted major initiatives of recent months? Erics_protege
  • Score: 19

9:10am Fri 10 Jan 14

Lestat1977 says...

pathe paradise and put up a parking lot
pathe paradise and put up a parking lot Lestat1977
  • Score: 2

9:24am Fri 10 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Erics-P, I understand some of your points and we need to see the plans and "footprint" before any of us can really comment but you may be aware that this current Government is actively encouraging building on greenbelt and that Local Councils had better have a plan in place which I believe St.Helens has, much I recall at a meeting I attended 6 months ago is on the South side of the Borough. I am nt happy with using green belt bt you can't beat Big Brother (the Government) who usually get it's way.

My support for any development is on jobs and you are right we got "mired" in the debate of whose figures were correct Dave Watts (10,000) or the residents who made the point of many not being local-but jobs all the same.

The fact of what would be built near my house is irrelevant as those who live in the vicinity of the old Parkside site obviously understood they had a major blot on the landscape when they took up residence next to them now gone. Major development in Warrington often held up to our Cllrs. as the way we should be going, appears not to be detered by Warrington's nimbys, they will be glad of the jobs in the nassive warehouses you can see alongside the M62 as you drive to Gemini.

It just appears to be a fact that whenever major plans/infrastructure such as HS2 is mooted objections on the lines you make rain down on us with all the usual comments of the mess it makes during construction plus increased traffic. That is why what is being proposed and plan is crucial. Terrible scars when I observed on my frequent trips to Canterbury of the HS1 but now you would be pushed to see where the track is just like when they laid the gas and water pipeline across the area.

As to housing in Bold that is a different argument as housing as well as jobs is a national priority.
Erics-P, I understand some of your points and we need to see the plans and "footprint" before any of us can really comment but you may be aware that this current Government is actively encouraging building on greenbelt and that Local Councils had better have a plan in place which I believe St.Helens has, much I recall at a meeting I attended 6 months ago is on the South side of the Borough. I am nt happy with using green belt bt you can't beat Big Brother (the Government) who usually get it's way. My support for any development is on jobs and you are right we got "mired" in the debate of whose figures were correct Dave Watts (10,000) or the residents who made the point of many not being local-but jobs all the same. The fact of what would be built near my house is irrelevant as those who live in the vicinity of the old Parkside site obviously understood they had a major blot on the landscape when they took up residence next to them now gone. Major development in Warrington often held up to our Cllrs. as the way we should be going, appears not to be detered by Warrington's nimbys, they will be glad of the jobs in the nassive warehouses you can see alongside the M62 as you drive to Gemini. It just appears to be a fact that whenever major plans/infrastructure such as HS2 is mooted objections on the lines you make rain down on us with all the usual comments of the mess it makes during construction plus increased traffic. That is why what is being proposed and plan is crucial. Terrible scars when I observed on my frequent trips to Canterbury of the HS1 but now you would be pushed to see where the track is just like when they laid the gas and water pipeline across the area. As to housing in Bold that is a different argument as housing as well as jobs is a national priority. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: -8

12:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Peter Dean says...

The plans have been available for some time, cover a massive area - not just the old colliery and will negatively affect many people in the local area. So what's next St Helens Council a Nuclear recycling centre? The signs said ski slope - we got a refuse dump, there's a housing shortage let's build a freight terminal.. One can only imagine what is next on the agenda for this once lovely area. I for one remain unconvinced by the promises of new jobs as I have heard it SO MANY times before and it has yet to be once proven.
The plans have been available for some time, cover a massive area - not just the old colliery and will negatively affect many people in the local area. So what's next St Helens Council a Nuclear recycling centre? The signs said ski slope - we got a refuse dump, there's a housing shortage let's build a freight terminal.. One can only imagine what is next on the agenda for this once lovely area. I for one remain unconvinced by the promises of new jobs as I have heard it SO MANY times before and it has yet to be once proven. Peter Dean
  • Score: 7

1:38pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record.

For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury.

YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS.

Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them.

The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed.

Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades.

A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar.

ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is.
Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record. For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury. YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS. Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them. The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed. Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades. A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar. ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is. Erics_protege
  • Score: 7

3:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Maybe the money is coming from the council tax rise? "Running on fumes" blah blah blah - more Labour mismanagement.
Maybe the money is coming from the council tax rise? "Running on fumes" blah blah blah - more Labour mismanagement. barrie timpson
  • Score: 3

4:34pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Keva68 says...

Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit.
Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it.
Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit. Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it. Keva68
  • Score: 8

5:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Erics_protege wrote:
Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record. For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury. YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS. Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them. The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed. Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades. A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar. ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is.
Where in my comment did I use the word blame? I was just stating Governmnet policy on Green-Belt to which all Authorities have had to respond with their own plan, which we have, otherwise Government could impose their own solution. As to the Plan as it is another company that appears to be involved it may be using the previous one or not or even modified. You are party to information via facebook which I do not use.

The we get the usual cheap shots at Council over the rate rise, held for two years (no moans then-eh) when they have further money taken out of their budget and predictably they get the blame-yes that is me blaming the Government this time. Judging by some renarks all easily solved by sacking all Cllrs. and Town hall staff.

Then you appear to know all about from where and how it is to be paid for. Again until firm facts are made public it's pure speculation.

The "Debate" which you mention will be run on the same lines of the previous Parkside issue and we will see what prevails.

Before you misrepresent me again, as I wrote in the last debate, I take no issue in the nimbys putting their case and objections as you correctly point out if it was me I may be taking a different line. There is nothing wrong with self-interest and protest just as there is nothing wrong in those that support the Development making their view. I just get tired of some making cheap shots at personalities rather than the issue, but I know who they are and come to expect it as they appear not to give me that right to defend my view and the Party of which I am a member. What the 2% increase in rates has to do with it puzzles me as that debate is on another comment thread. I am awaiting the comment it's all Brown's fault, the default position when things arise such as this.
[quote][p][bold]Erics_protege[/bold] wrote: Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record. For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury. YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS. Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them. The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed. Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades. A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar. ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is.[/p][/quote]Where in my comment did I use the word blame? I was just stating Governmnet policy on Green-Belt to which all Authorities have had to respond with their own plan, which we have, otherwise Government could impose their own solution. As to the Plan as it is another company that appears to be involved it may be using the previous one or not or even modified. You are party to information via facebook which I do not use. The we get the usual cheap shots at Council over the rate rise, held for two years (no moans then-eh) when they have further money taken out of their budget and predictably they get the blame-yes that is me blaming the Government this time. Judging by some renarks all easily solved by sacking all Cllrs. and Town hall staff. Then you appear to know all about from where and how it is to be paid for. Again until firm facts are made public it's pure speculation. The "Debate" which you mention will be run on the same lines of the previous Parkside issue and we will see what prevails. Before you misrepresent me again, as I wrote in the last debate, I take no issue in the nimbys putting their case and objections as you correctly point out if it was me I may be taking a different line. There is nothing wrong with self-interest and protest just as there is nothing wrong in those that support the Development making their view. I just get tired of some making cheap shots at personalities rather than the issue, but I know who they are and come to expect it as they appear not to give me that right to defend my view and the Party of which I am a member. What the 2% increase in rates has to do with it puzzles me as that debate is on another comment thread. I am awaiting the comment it's all Brown's fault, the default position when things arise such as this. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: -5

5:54pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Erics_protege wrote:
Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record. For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury. YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS. Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them. The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed. Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades. A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar. ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is.
Where in my comment did I use the word blame? I was just stating Governmnet policy on Green-Belt to which all Authorities have had to respond with their own plan, which we have, otherwise Government could impose their own solution. As to the Plan as it is another company that appears to be involved it may be using the previous one or not or even modified. You are party to information via facebook which I do not use.

The we get the usual cheap shots at Council over the rate rise, held for two years (no moans then-eh) when they have further money taken out of their budget and predictably they get the blame-yes that is me blaming the Government this time. Judging by some renarks all easily solved by sacking all Cllrs. and Town hall staff.

Then you appear to know all about from where and how it is to be paid for. Again until firm facts are made public it's pure speculation.

The "Debate" which you mention will be run on the same lines of the previous Parkside issue and we will see what prevails.

Before you misrepresent me again, as I wrote in the last debate, I take no issue in the nimbys putting their case and objections as you correctly point out if it was me I may be taking a different line. There is nothing wrong with self-interest and protest just as there is nothing wrong in those that support the Development making their view. I just get tired of some making cheap shots at personalities rather than the issue, but I know who they are and come to expect it as they appear not to give me that right to defend my view and the Party of which I am a member. What the 2% increase in rates has to do with it puzzles me as that debate is on another comment thread. I am awaiting the comment it's all Brown's fault, the default position when things arise such as this.
Bill, Where did I mention rate rises, personalities or sacking councillors? I'm confused, are you reading something else?

Yet again you use cheap name calling to label people NIMBYS in the hope that the ignorant idiots who don't check the facts join in and follow whatever line is trotted out.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Erics_protege[/bold] wrote: Bill..it didn't take you long to point the blame at the government! I don't see David Cameron grinning at the top of the page or making promises in the town hall? A typical local labour ploy, if something is unpopular blame the tory government and if you say it often enough the idiots will believe it. "Cameron is to blame for the bins, poor schools, poor town centre, pool closures etc". Zzzz change the record. For the record, I am not yet on one side or the other of this debate as we haven't seen the plans. My argument with you is that you are quite obviously down on one side already and criticising people for standing up for themselves without facts and from a position of some luxury. YOUR location is entirely relevant to your part in the debate. If you had such a development in the field next to your house I am almost certain that you would have a different opinion the matter and therefore, you are in no position to call anyone NIMBYS. Lots of people will have bought houses whether existing or on the multiple new estates built since Parkside closed (at a prevailing value) that will be affected by any development. You are kidding yourself that you would act any differently and would just sit by and let it happen if you were in their shoes so you shouldn't criticise them. The reasoned debate that took place last night on a Newton Facebook page was superb and wasn't along the political lines that many jump down. Hardly any of those who are against the announcement are actually against development. What they did seem to object to is a new, much larger footprint for the site, traffic projections that they say are way beyond anything that was present when Parkside was active and suspiciously high estimates of the benefits that make the whole thing smell fishy. The odd post suggested that it should be left natural but a fair percentage of the objectors believe that some development and business use is needed. Unlike HS2, we aren't talking about a relatively short term pipe laying project that can be covered over, we are talking about something that will shape the NW landscape and environment for decades. A sensible, grown up debate is what is needed for such matters, not name calling from afar. ps - Don't forget to ask where the money has suddenly come from as nobody has explained yet. The figure mentioned last night was £12million, not sure how true it is.[/p][/quote]Where in my comment did I use the word blame? I was just stating Governmnet policy on Green-Belt to which all Authorities have had to respond with their own plan, which we have, otherwise Government could impose their own solution. As to the Plan as it is another company that appears to be involved it may be using the previous one or not or even modified. You are party to information via facebook which I do not use. The we get the usual cheap shots at Council over the rate rise, held for two years (no moans then-eh) when they have further money taken out of their budget and predictably they get the blame-yes that is me blaming the Government this time. Judging by some renarks all easily solved by sacking all Cllrs. and Town hall staff. Then you appear to know all about from where and how it is to be paid for. Again until firm facts are made public it's pure speculation. The "Debate" which you mention will be run on the same lines of the previous Parkside issue and we will see what prevails. Before you misrepresent me again, as I wrote in the last debate, I take no issue in the nimbys putting their case and objections as you correctly point out if it was me I may be taking a different line. There is nothing wrong with self-interest and protest just as there is nothing wrong in those that support the Development making their view. I just get tired of some making cheap shots at personalities rather than the issue, but I know who they are and come to expect it as they appear not to give me that right to defend my view and the Party of which I am a member. What the 2% increase in rates has to do with it puzzles me as that debate is on another comment thread. I am awaiting the comment it's all Brown's fault, the default position when things arise such as this.[/p][/quote]Bill, Where did I mention rate rises, personalities or sacking councillors? I'm confused, are you reading something else? Yet again you use cheap name calling to label people NIMBYS in the hope that the ignorant idiots who don't check the facts join in and follow whatever line is trotted out. Erics_protege
  • Score: 6

5:56pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Keva68 wrote:
Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit.
Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it.
Read my comments above re: all of the people who have bought houses since the pit closed. It's not as straight forward as you suggest as so many years have passed. If it was 12 months since I'd probably agree but it isn't.

Also read my comments above re the last proposal being on a different scale to the pit.
[quote][p][bold]Keva68[/bold] wrote: Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit. Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it.[/p][/quote]Read my comments above re: all of the people who have bought houses since the pit closed. It's not as straight forward as you suggest as so many years have passed. If it was 12 months since I'd probably agree but it isn't. Also read my comments above re the last proposal being on a different scale to the pit. Erics_protege
  • Score: 1

8:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

i5tola says...

Hi, Erics.
The burden of discloser is on the person purchasing the property and the people selling it. Just because the land had not been used for a number of years does not change its status. Buying a house is not like renting a flat.
The land has two railway lines, a major freeway, all intersecting on this property. It is more than logical to use this land for the intended purpose.
Hi, Erics. The burden of discloser is on the person purchasing the property and the people selling it. Just because the land had not been used for a number of years does not change its status. Buying a house is not like renting a flat. The land has two railway lines, a major freeway, all intersecting on this property. It is more than logical to use this land for the intended purpose. i5tola
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

i5tola wrote:
Hi, Erics.
The burden of discloser is on the person purchasing the property and the people selling it. Just because the land had not been used for a number of years does not change its status. Buying a house is not like renting a flat.
The land has two railway lines, a major freeway, all intersecting on this property. It is more than logical to use this land for the intended purpose.
Hi, agreed, it is logical for something to be built on the site. I have stated my opinion above that there should be a sensible, non political discussion about the type and scale of such development with realistic projections from both sides.

Unfortunately I don't think that will happen.
[quote][p][bold]i5tola[/bold] wrote: Hi, Erics. The burden of discloser is on the person purchasing the property and the people selling it. Just because the land had not been used for a number of years does not change its status. Buying a house is not like renting a flat. The land has two railway lines, a major freeway, all intersecting on this property. It is more than logical to use this land for the intended purpose.[/p][/quote]Hi, agreed, it is logical for something to be built on the site. I have stated my opinion above that there should be a sensible, non political discussion about the type and scale of such development with realistic projections from both sides. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen. Erics_protege
  • Score: 6

9:06pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Keva68 says...

Erics_protege wrote:
Keva68 wrote:
Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit.
Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it.
Read my comments above re: all of the people who have bought houses since the pit closed. It's not as straight forward as you suggest as so many years have passed. If it was 12 months since I'd probably agree but it isn't.

Also read my comments above re the last proposal being on a different scale to the pit.
If it creates work for all the young unemployed people in this town build it whether it be a nuclear power plant or a train depot.
[quote][p][bold]Erics_protege[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keva68[/bold] wrote: Didn't there used to be a big dirty coal mine at the site ,surely when people purchased houses in this area they knew it was industrial land or already lived near it when it was a pit. Let's get work into the area and get something of use built on it.[/p][/quote]Read my comments above re: all of the people who have bought houses since the pit closed. It's not as straight forward as you suggest as so many years have passed. If it was 12 months since I'd probably agree but it isn't. Also read my comments above re the last proposal being on a different scale to the pit.[/p][/quote]If it creates work for all the young unemployed people in this town build it whether it be a nuclear power plant or a train depot. Keva68
  • Score: -1

9:02am Sat 11 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Erics once again you don't read carefully. I did not say you called for Cllrs. to be dismissed but others do on the comment site on the rate increase. I was refering to them. Barrie above raises the issue of the tax rise. Sugges you have a look at the Council tax commnets. I am not responding to that as they are so predictable-any excuse to have a cheap shot at our Cllrs.
As to the word nimby, it is a perfectly reasonable and well used term to those who object when their "back-yards" are threatened. We are all nimby's to some extent.
Erics once again you don't read carefully. I did not say you called for Cllrs. to be dismissed but others do on the comment site on the rate increase. I was refering to them. Barrie above raises the issue of the tax rise. Sugges you have a look at the Council tax commnets. I am not responding to that as they are so predictable-any excuse to have a cheap shot at our Cllrs. As to the word nimby, it is a perfectly reasonable and well used term to those who object when their "back-yards" are threatened. We are all nimby's to some extent. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: -3

10:02am Sat 11 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Erics once again you don't read carefully. I did not say you called for Cllrs. to be dismissed but others do on the comment site on the rate increase. I was refering to them. Barrie above raises the issue of the tax rise. Sugges you have a look at the Council tax commnets. I am not responding to that as they are so predictable-any excuse to have a cheap shot at our Cllrs.
As to the word nimby, it is a perfectly reasonable and well used term to those who object when their "back-yards" are threatened. We are all nimby's to some extent.
Sorry Bill, I'm a bit new to these forums so I assumed that you responded to the relevant post as it happened not confuse someone else's thread by referring to something that someone completely unconnected once said on another matter. That seems like something a politician would do :-)

I wasn't aware of your history or background so had a quick look at older Star posts when you mentioned something about the past above. Are you the same Bill Bradshaw that seemed to speak out about a Landfill in Billinge or the one who admitted that a member of your family was a NIMBY in Irlam or somewhere over that way? I genuinely don't know, so if you aren't then ignore me.

Perhaps I was misreading or misquoting or misrepresenting you again so apologies. We must be speaking different dialects of the same language.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Erics once again you don't read carefully. I did not say you called for Cllrs. to be dismissed but others do on the comment site on the rate increase. I was refering to them. Barrie above raises the issue of the tax rise. Sugges you have a look at the Council tax commnets. I am not responding to that as they are so predictable-any excuse to have a cheap shot at our Cllrs. As to the word nimby, it is a perfectly reasonable and well used term to those who object when their "back-yards" are threatened. We are all nimby's to some extent.[/p][/quote]Sorry Bill, I'm a bit new to these forums so I assumed that you responded to the relevant post as it happened not confuse someone else's thread by referring to something that someone completely unconnected once said on another matter. That seems like something a politician would do :-) I wasn't aware of your history or background so had a quick look at older Star posts when you mentioned something about the past above. Are you the same Bill Bradshaw that seemed to speak out about a Landfill in Billinge or the one who admitted that a member of your family was a NIMBY in Irlam or somewhere over that way? I genuinely don't know, so if you aren't then ignore me. Perhaps I was misreading or misquoting or misrepresenting you again so apologies. We must be speaking different dialects of the same language. Erics_protege
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Sat 11 Jan 14

disillusionedsthelenser says...

i5tola wrote:
Bill Bradbury wrote:
Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature.
The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed.
With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on!
The last time this was done, people were just thinking of their pathetic little selves and the time they have left. This could give jobs for a hundred years to come. Those Jobe will provide, in turn, more jobs. This and other projects like them, make the future. Even if you don't have or want a future there are many young people who do. The price of the future? Some inconvenience, lots of work, and cash, lots of cash.
People are so scared of progress these days.

It was probably the same lot moaning last time that moaned when the pit was closed in the 1990s.

If we're going to develop it - lets develop it and get some proper jobs for locals, and money to the area (not sure what it's going to be but guessing a rail freight terminal may bring the occasional hotel guest into the area?).

If we're NOT going to develop it - lets spend a little bit of money and make it into worthwhile leisure land - perhaps something like the 'Dream' site.

Hey - perhaps the NIMBYs will put their hands in their pockets and sponsor a tree or two.
[quote][p][bold]i5tola[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature. The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed. With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on![/p][/quote]The last time this was done, people were just thinking of their pathetic little selves and the time they have left. This could give jobs for a hundred years to come. Those Jobe will provide, in turn, more jobs. This and other projects like them, make the future. Even if you don't have or want a future there are many young people who do. The price of the future? Some inconvenience, lots of work, and cash, lots of cash.[/p][/quote]People are so scared of progress these days. It was probably the same lot moaning last time that moaned when the pit was closed in the 1990s. If we're going to develop it - lets develop it and get some proper jobs for locals, and money to the area (not sure what it's going to be but guessing a rail freight terminal may bring the occasional hotel guest into the area?). If we're NOT going to develop it - lets spend a little bit of money and make it into worthwhile leisure land - perhaps something like the 'Dream' site. Hey - perhaps the NIMBYs will put their hands in their pockets and sponsor a tree or two. disillusionedsthelenser
  • Score: 2

4:10am Sun 12 Jan 14

i5tola says...

Is it big enough for a Disneyland ?
Is it big enough for a Disneyland ? i5tola
  • Score: 3

8:33am Sun 12 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Eric, I don't think that was me nor my name on landfill. What are all totally opposed to in Billinge and fought a number of successful campaigns is open cast mining for if they got a toe-hold the people of St.Helens will look up towards Billinge Hill and see a black scar all the way down from Newton Road to Carr Mill Dam. There would be no way it could be shielded. They would be on site for at least 100 years.
Garswood residents had a battle over a site by the motorway which was an eyesore for years.
Eric, I don't think that was me nor my name on landfill. What are all totally opposed to in Billinge and fought a number of successful campaigns is open cast mining for if they got a toe-hold the people of St.Helens will look up towards Billinge Hill and see a black scar all the way down from Newton Road to Carr Mill Dam. There would be no way it could be shielded. They would be on site for at least 100 years. Garswood residents had a battle over a site by the motorway which was an eyesore for years. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 2

10:05am Sun 12 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature.
The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed.
With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on!
Bill Bradbury Thursday 9th January versus Bill Bradbury Sunday 12th January. Thanks for being honest though Bill.

I suspect the people of Newton would want to understand the difference.

As you admit and which was my initial point, we are all Nimbys if the issue affects us. My argument is that we should avoid using Nimby as an emotional / derogatory term as we were once / will be again those people that you derided on Thursday.

We should let the people of Newton have their say and look at the real facts before criticising them. Everyone should do likewise before deciding yes or no.

The other Bill Bradbury suggested that the people in Rainford did this regarding the landfill. http://www.sthelenss
tar.co.uk/news/90601
95.Waste_plans_spark
_village_anger/

It will be interesting to see which way the Councillors who actually live in Newton go when the plans are out.

Barrie G can do or say what he wants, he doesn't even live in St Helens does he? He's in a worse position than you to criticise them!

BTW - Yesterday I was in Widnes and looked across Penketh & Sankey. Despite the estates and several miles, I could still see that new warehouse that they are building at Burtonwood. If you are unlucky Bill, you may get to see the scar in Newton from your ivory tower in Billinge :-(
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Hooray!! At least the Star letters and comments for the next few years will be full of protests from the Nymbys of Newton. Rare plants, protected frogs a nature reserve will all feature. The only argument we ended with last time which had some substance was a major reconstruction of the feeder roads on to the M6 would be needed. With the electrification of the Liverpool Manchester line and all routes North and South. plus the major development of freght from Liverpool docks, this will be the ideal site. As to jobs, which featured much in the great debate a few years ago, whether 10,000 or two at least it's another job. Let us hope this time it ges off the ground as the Lib dems last time wrere luke warm on this and I recall ex Cllr. Knight totally opposed. Bring it on![/p][/quote]Bill Bradbury Thursday 9th January versus Bill Bradbury Sunday 12th January. Thanks for being honest though Bill. I suspect the people of Newton would want to understand the difference. As you admit and which was my initial point, we are all Nimbys if the issue affects us. My argument is that we should avoid using Nimby as an emotional / derogatory term as we were once / will be again those people that you derided on Thursday. We should let the people of Newton have their say and look at the real facts before criticising them. Everyone should do likewise before deciding yes or no. The other Bill Bradbury suggested that the people in Rainford did this regarding the landfill. http://www.sthelenss tar.co.uk/news/90601 95.Waste_plans_spark _village_anger/ It will be interesting to see which way the Councillors who actually live in Newton go when the plans are out. Barrie G can do or say what he wants, he doesn't even live in St Helens does he? He's in a worse position than you to criticise them! BTW - Yesterday I was in Widnes and looked across Penketh & Sankey. Despite the estates and several miles, I could still see that new warehouse that they are building at Burtonwood. If you are unlucky Bill, you may get to see the scar in Newton from your ivory tower in Billinge :-( Erics_protege
  • Score: 9

11:07am Sun 12 Jan 14

SaintBoots says...

So the “Parkside” development is back on track as Cllr Grunewald makes his commitment to deliver “one of the largest projects in Britain” for the people of St Helens.

Let’s get one fact straight. This project isn’t “Parkside” at all. It is the Parkside site and an area just as big, if not bigger, on the other side of the motorway laying waste to a massive area of green belt land for ever. This area stretches from the Trebaron Garden centre southwards and swallows up all of the area between the A573 and the M6 motorway, plus an area of equal size on the other side of the A573 all the way down to the present Junction 22 of the M6. Make no mistake, this will be a colossal site with huge warehouses each in excess of 1 million sq. ft blighting the landscape. The traffic this will development will generate is enormous – projected at 17,000 HGV’s a day on an already “at-capacity” stretch of the M6 which is prone to persistent traffic congestion. This scheme will cause utter misery for local vehicles and commuters alike if it goes ahead.

As for the economic benefits, things have either moved on or changed with regard to a number of the factors which supposedly supported the reasons for this development 4 years ago. Just a few miles away, the Omega development on the M62 now has 2 major warehouse & logistics depots operational with another under construction. Peel Ports who run the Manchester Ship Canal have invested £300 million in their route with 5 new container ports operational or under construction at Salford, Irlam, Warrington, Ince(Frodsham), Bridgewater (Eastham) and in addition to that there’s the new deep water container terminal at Liverpool 2 (Seaforth)coming into operation 2015, with all of these developments feeding straight into the road and rail network. These developments did not exist when this project was last tabled 4 years ago. Why does Newton need such a huge freight distribution facility when there will be at least another 8 in the North West by 2015?

In fact, the only thing that ever made this project viable was the jobs, which was “7,000” at the latest count. I am sick of developers and politicians alike dangling the perennial carrot of “jobs” to push development schemes through, only to find that those jobs never quite materialise when the scheme is complete due to any given number of external factors or excuses. This will be no different. I’m willing to bet this scheme won’t generate a tenth of the 7,000 jobs quoted. In fact I’m willing put my money where my mouth is. I’m offering Cllr Grunewald a wager. I’m willing to bet my house against his house that this scheme will not generate 7,000 permanent, onsite jobs if it goes ahead. And if it does, he’s welcome to my house as I’ll be on the first train out of here, as the traffic will be at a standstill.
So the “Parkside” development is back on track as Cllr Grunewald makes his commitment to deliver “one of the largest projects in Britain” for the people of St Helens. Let’s get one fact straight. This project isn’t “Parkside” at all. It is the Parkside site and an area just as big, if not bigger, on the other side of the motorway laying waste to a massive area of green belt land for ever. This area stretches from the Trebaron Garden centre southwards and swallows up all of the area between the A573 and the M6 motorway, plus an area of equal size on the other side of the A573 all the way down to the present Junction 22 of the M6. Make no mistake, this will be a colossal site with huge warehouses each in excess of 1 million sq. ft blighting the landscape. The traffic this will development will generate is enormous – projected at 17,000 HGV’s a day on an already “at-capacity” stretch of the M6 which is prone to persistent traffic congestion. This scheme will cause utter misery for local vehicles and commuters alike if it goes ahead. As for the economic benefits, things have either moved on or changed with regard to a number of the factors which supposedly supported the reasons for this development 4 years ago. Just a few miles away, the Omega development on the M62 now has 2 major warehouse & logistics depots operational with another under construction. Peel Ports who run the Manchester Ship Canal have invested £300 million in their route with 5 new container ports operational or under construction at Salford, Irlam, Warrington, Ince(Frodsham), Bridgewater (Eastham) and in addition to that there’s the new deep water container terminal at Liverpool 2 (Seaforth)coming into operation 2015, with all of these developments feeding straight into the road and rail network. These developments did not exist when this project was last tabled 4 years ago. Why does Newton need such a huge freight distribution facility when there will be at least another 8 in the North West by 2015? In fact, the only thing that ever made this project viable was the jobs, which was “7,000” at the latest count. I am sick of developers and politicians alike dangling the perennial carrot of “jobs” to push development schemes through, only to find that those jobs never quite materialise when the scheme is complete due to any given number of external factors or excuses. This will be no different. I’m willing to bet this scheme won’t generate a tenth of the 7,000 jobs quoted. In fact I’m willing put my money where my mouth is. I’m offering Cllr Grunewald a wager. I’m willing to bet my house against his house that this scheme will not generate 7,000 permanent, onsite jobs if it goes ahead. And if it does, he’s welcome to my house as I’ll be on the first train out of here, as the traffic will be at a standstill. SaintBoots
  • Score: 8

2:13pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Bill Bradbury says...

I think Saintsboots covers the anti Parkside view very well. I just note that it repeats and gets mired in the previous debate of how many jobs it will create. As I wrote then and earleir whether its 7000 or whatever so long as jobs are created. It is also interesting to note that I recall many Newton residents would have preferred being part of Warrington than St.Helens, an authority that does not seem averse as Eric mentions in putting up large warehouses and developments.

However I will believe it when I see it and it may suffer the same fate as before and nothing gets done. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I just wonder how the Industrial revolution happened when those "satanic Mills" were built? I suppose Luddites was the fore-runner of
Nimby?
I think Saintsboots covers the anti Parkside view very well. I just note that it repeats and gets mired in the previous debate of how many jobs it will create. As I wrote then and earleir whether its 7000 or whatever so long as jobs are created. It is also interesting to note that I recall many Newton residents would have preferred being part of Warrington than St.Helens, an authority that does not seem averse as Eric mentions in putting up large warehouses and developments. However I will believe it when I see it and it may suffer the same fate as before and nothing gets done. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I just wonder how the Industrial revolution happened when those "satanic Mills" were built? I suppose Luddites was the fore-runner of Nimby? Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 2

2:27pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Erics_protege says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
I think Saintsboots covers the anti Parkside view very well. I just note that it repeats and gets mired in the previous debate of how many jobs it will create. As I wrote then and earleir whether its 7000 or whatever so long as jobs are created. It is also interesting to note that I recall many Newton residents would have preferred being part of Warrington than St.Helens, an authority that does not seem averse as Eric mentions in putting up large warehouses and developments.

However I will believe it when I see it and it may suffer the same fate as before and nothing gets done. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I just wonder how the Industrial revolution happened when those "satanic Mills" were built? I suppose Luddites was the fore-runner of
Nimby?
And they wouldn't have got the coal out of the ground to power the mills as people would have objected to those too Bill :-)
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: I think Saintsboots covers the anti Parkside view very well. I just note that it repeats and gets mired in the previous debate of how many jobs it will create. As I wrote then and earleir whether its 7000 or whatever so long as jobs are created. It is also interesting to note that I recall many Newton residents would have preferred being part of Warrington than St.Helens, an authority that does not seem averse as Eric mentions in putting up large warehouses and developments. However I will believe it when I see it and it may suffer the same fate as before and nothing gets done. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. I just wonder how the Industrial revolution happened when those "satanic Mills" were built? I suppose Luddites was the fore-runner of Nimby?[/p][/quote]And they wouldn't have got the coal out of the ground to power the mills as people would have objected to those too Bill :-) Erics_protege
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Mon 13 Jan 14

anthonywilson says...

SaintBoots wrote:
So the “Parkside” development is back on track as Cllr Grunewald makes his commitment to deliver “one of the largest projects in Britain” for the people of St Helens. Let’s get one fact straight. This project isn’t “Parkside” at all. It is the Parkside site and an area just as big, if not bigger, on the other side of the motorway laying waste to a massive area of green belt land for ever. This area stretches from the Trebaron Garden centre southwards and swallows up all of the area between the A573 and the M6 motorway, plus an area of equal size on the other side of the A573 all the way down to the present Junction 22 of the M6. Make no mistake, this will be a colossal site with huge warehouses each in excess of 1 million sq. ft blighting the landscape. The traffic this will development will generate is enormous – projected at 17,000 HGV’s a day on an already “at-capacity” stretch of the M6 which is prone to persistent traffic congestion. This scheme will cause utter misery for local vehicles and commuters alike if it goes ahead. As for the economic benefits, things have either moved on or changed with regard to a number of the factors which supposedly supported the reasons for this development 4 years ago. Just a few miles away, the Omega development on the M62 now has 2 major warehouse & logistics depots operational with another under construction. Peel Ports who run the Manchester Ship Canal have invested £300 million in their route with 5 new container ports operational or under construction at Salford, Irlam, Warrington, Ince(Frodsham), Bridgewater (Eastham) and in addition to that there’s the new deep water container terminal at Liverpool 2 (Seaforth)coming into operation 2015, with all of these developments feeding straight into the road and rail network. These developments did not exist when this project was last tabled 4 years ago. Why does Newton need such a huge freight distribution facility when there will be at least another 8 in the North West by 2015? In fact, the only thing that ever made this project viable was the jobs, which was “7,000” at the latest count. I am sick of developers and politicians alike dangling the perennial carrot of “jobs” to push development schemes through, only to find that those jobs never quite materialise when the scheme is complete due to any given number of external factors or excuses. This will be no different. I’m willing to bet this scheme won’t generate a tenth of the 7,000 jobs quoted. In fact I’m willing put my money where my mouth is. I’m offering Cllr Grunewald a wager. I’m willing to bet my house against his house that this scheme will not generate 7,000 permanent, onsite jobs if it goes ahead. And if it does, he’s welcome to my house as I’ll be on the first train out of here, as the traffic will be at a standstill.
Excellent post which covers many salient points about Parkside. Given the number of rail and freight distribution sites already now in existence in the North West where is the projected need? The M6 in Haydock and Newton is already heavily congested almost every day and is subject to increased environmental air quality monitoring as the area already has a problem. Then there is the significant amount of noise polution that this site will create. As you have stated earlier the chances that 7000 full time permamnent jobs will be created will be highly unlikely. In any case why should the local economy be simply developed around warehousing, logistics and distribution? No disrespect to those who work in that industry, but is that all people in the area are worth? What about investing in more high tech better paid jobs in science and technology instead of distribution? I would also raise a point about why St Helens Council on one hand play poverty because of the cuts (which I know and agree with them are harsh and unfair) and yet on the other hand can find £6 million to invest in the " Parkside Project?" They can't have it both ways! I would also as why is it that whenever there is a large development project planned, Langtree have to be involved? Do St Helens Council ever speak to other developers and where is the fair and transparent procurement process?
With any new development project there may well be a degree of Nibyism but lets face it not many of our local politicians will ever live anywhere near the site and if they did they would be the first to object to it.
[quote][p][bold]SaintBoots[/bold] wrote: So the “Parkside” development is back on track as Cllr Grunewald makes his commitment to deliver “one of the largest projects in Britain” for the people of St Helens. Let’s get one fact straight. This project isn’t “Parkside” at all. It is the Parkside site and an area just as big, if not bigger, on the other side of the motorway laying waste to a massive area of green belt land for ever. This area stretches from the Trebaron Garden centre southwards and swallows up all of the area between the A573 and the M6 motorway, plus an area of equal size on the other side of the A573 all the way down to the present Junction 22 of the M6. Make no mistake, this will be a colossal site with huge warehouses each in excess of 1 million sq. ft blighting the landscape. The traffic this will development will generate is enormous – projected at 17,000 HGV’s a day on an already “at-capacity” stretch of the M6 which is prone to persistent traffic congestion. This scheme will cause utter misery for local vehicles and commuters alike if it goes ahead. As for the economic benefits, things have either moved on or changed with regard to a number of the factors which supposedly supported the reasons for this development 4 years ago. Just a few miles away, the Omega development on the M62 now has 2 major warehouse & logistics depots operational with another under construction. Peel Ports who run the Manchester Ship Canal have invested £300 million in their route with 5 new container ports operational or under construction at Salford, Irlam, Warrington, Ince(Frodsham), Bridgewater (Eastham) and in addition to that there’s the new deep water container terminal at Liverpool 2 (Seaforth)coming into operation 2015, with all of these developments feeding straight into the road and rail network. These developments did not exist when this project was last tabled 4 years ago. Why does Newton need such a huge freight distribution facility when there will be at least another 8 in the North West by 2015? In fact, the only thing that ever made this project viable was the jobs, which was “7,000” at the latest count. I am sick of developers and politicians alike dangling the perennial carrot of “jobs” to push development schemes through, only to find that those jobs never quite materialise when the scheme is complete due to any given number of external factors or excuses. This will be no different. I’m willing to bet this scheme won’t generate a tenth of the 7,000 jobs quoted. In fact I’m willing put my money where my mouth is. I’m offering Cllr Grunewald a wager. I’m willing to bet my house against his house that this scheme will not generate 7,000 permanent, onsite jobs if it goes ahead. And if it does, he’s welcome to my house as I’ll be on the first train out of here, as the traffic will be at a standstill.[/p][/quote]Excellent post which covers many salient points about Parkside. Given the number of rail and freight distribution sites already now in existence in the North West where is the projected need? The M6 in Haydock and Newton is already heavily congested almost every day and is subject to increased environmental air quality monitoring as the area already has a problem. Then there is the significant amount of noise polution that this site will create. As you have stated earlier the chances that 7000 full time permamnent jobs will be created will be highly unlikely. In any case why should the local economy be simply developed around warehousing, logistics and distribution? No disrespect to those who work in that industry, but is that all people in the area are worth? What about investing in more high tech better paid jobs in science and technology instead of distribution? I would also raise a point about why St Helens Council on one hand play poverty because of the cuts (which I know and agree with them are harsh and unfair) and yet on the other hand can find £6 million to invest in the " Parkside Project?" They can't have it both ways! I would also as why is it that whenever there is a large development project planned, Langtree have to be involved? Do St Helens Council ever speak to other developers and where is the fair and transparent procurement process? With any new development project there may well be a degree of Nibyism but lets face it not many of our local politicians will ever live anywhere near the site and if they did they would be the first to object to it. anthonywilson
  • Score: 6

4:00pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Sankey says...

Very good point above about langtree every development St. Helens council get involved with is langtree and only langtree.

That's not a little disconcerting

Also as others have said St. Helens council is sacking workers and cutting services and pleading poverty and raising the council tax then suddenly can find millions of pounds out of thin air.

Parkside is also winwick in effect it's nearer warrington than St. Helens not sure how the people of St. Helens feel about their supposedly short funds being used to support warrington.

This whole situation stinks to high heaven
Very good point above about langtree every development St. Helens council get involved with is langtree and only langtree. That's not a little disconcerting Also as others have said St. Helens council is sacking workers and cutting services and pleading poverty and raising the council tax then suddenly can find millions of pounds out of thin air. Parkside is also winwick in effect it's nearer warrington than St. Helens not sure how the people of St. Helens feel about their supposedly short funds being used to support warrington. This whole situation stinks to high heaven Sankey
  • Score: 7

5:12pm Mon 13 Jan 14

chasmcn says...

You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that .

Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on .

Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article ,
You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that . Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on . Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article , chasmcn
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Sankey says...

It does not matter whether langtree are in Newton or the moon

It's suspicious they are the only developer the council deal with in fact there is something murky about this whole situation but I can't put my finger on it.

The statement by barrie grunewald when he took office from the coup from Marie about parkside was very contrived and the timing for his MP campaign the whole thing does not feel right
It does not matter whether langtree are in Newton or the moon It's suspicious they are the only developer the council deal with in fact there is something murky about this whole situation but I can't put my finger on it. The statement by barrie grunewald when he took office from the coup from Marie about parkside was very contrived and the timing for his MP campaign the whole thing does not feel right Sankey
  • Score: 5

5:53pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Keva68 says...

Here's an idea stop whinging get it built and get some jobs into the area 1 or 7000 is better than nothing.
That's unless you find a couple of endangered bats living on the site.
Here's an idea stop whinging get it built and get some jobs into the area 1 or 7000 is better than nothing. That's unless you find a couple of endangered bats living on the site. Keva68
  • Score: -1

7:57pm Mon 13 Jan 14

quizling says...

what is in it for grunewalde? he is dishonest because he was given a caution for signing a false expenses claim for a politician
what is in it for grunewalde? he is dishonest because he was given a caution for signing a false expenses claim for a politician quizling
  • Score: 6

9:45am Tue 14 Jan 14

keepitreel says...

LANGTREE will be the main contractor for the development and like all the other sites in ST HELENS they have been involved with the work will be sub-contracted to the cheapest firm who in turn will sub-contract it to a cheaper firm again who then use self employed workers,ask the bricklayers and metal workers who worked on the SAINTS ground and never got paid for their labour because the firm they worked for as sub-contractors ceased trading just before the job was finished and LANGTREE didnt want to know,is it an open tendering system or is LANGTREE the only builder in the area?.
LANGTREE will be the main contractor for the development and like all the other sites in ST HELENS they have been involved with the work will be sub-contracted to the cheapest firm who in turn will sub-contract it to a cheaper firm again who then use self employed workers,ask the bricklayers and metal workers who worked on the SAINTS ground and never got paid for their labour because the firm they worked for as sub-contractors ceased trading just before the job was finished and LANGTREE didnt want to know,is it an open tendering system or is LANGTREE the only builder in the area?. keepitreel
  • Score: 0

9:45am Tue 14 Jan 14

keepitreel says...

LANGTREE will be the main contractor for the development and like all the other sites in ST HELENS they have been involved with the work will be sub-contracted to the cheapest firm who in turn will sub-contract it to a cheaper firm again who then use self employed workers,ask the bricklayers and metal workers who worked on the SAINTS ground and never got paid for their labour because the firm they worked for as sub-contractors ceased trading just before the job was finished and LANGTREE didnt want to know,is it an open tendering system or is LANGTREE the only builder in the area?.
LANGTREE will be the main contractor for the development and like all the other sites in ST HELENS they have been involved with the work will be sub-contracted to the cheapest firm who in turn will sub-contract it to a cheaper firm again who then use self employed workers,ask the bricklayers and metal workers who worked on the SAINTS ground and never got paid for their labour because the firm they worked for as sub-contractors ceased trading just before the job was finished and LANGTREE didnt want to know,is it an open tendering system or is LANGTREE the only builder in the area?. keepitreel
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Tue 14 Jan 14

anthonywilson says...

chasmcn wrote:
You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that . Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on . Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article ,
Its been obtained via a Freedom of Information Request from the following group:
http://ourlocalvoice
.co.uk/?page_id=12

St Helens Council have invested £6 million in a new venture company as part of the Parkside project development. Isn't it rather strange that this is not mentioned in the article as you have noticed or has made more public. Perhaps its got something do to with the fact Council Tax will be going up and more serviced being cut.
As has already been pointed out it doesn't matter if Langree are based locally, it appears no other developer ever gets a look in and people are entitled to ask why.
[quote][p][bold]chasmcn[/bold] wrote: You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that . Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on . Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article ,[/p][/quote]Its been obtained via a Freedom of Information Request from the following group: http://ourlocalvoice .co.uk/?page_id=12 St Helens Council have invested £6 million in a new venture company as part of the Parkside project development. Isn't it rather strange that this is not mentioned in the article as you have noticed or has made more public. Perhaps its got something do to with the fact Council Tax will be going up and more serviced being cut. As has already been pointed out it doesn't matter if Langree are based locally, it appears no other developer ever gets a look in and people are entitled to ask why. anthonywilson
  • Score: 6

8:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

quizling says...

probably backhanders, thats how these things are done
probably backhanders, thats how these things are done quizling
  • Score: 3

8:57pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chasmcn says...

anthonywilson wrote:
chasmcn wrote:
You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that . Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on . Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article ,
Its been obtained via a Freedom of Information Request from the following group:
http://ourlocalvoice

.co.uk/?page_id=12

St Helens Council have invested £6 million in a new venture company as part of the Parkside project development. Isn't it rather strange that this is not mentioned in the article as you have noticed or has made more public. Perhaps its got something do to with the fact Council Tax will be going up and more serviced being cut.
As has already been pointed out it doesn't matter if Langree are based locally, it appears no other developer ever gets a look in and people are entitled to ask why.
Thanks for the link so i had a read of what Our Local Voice had to say i noted that PAG was a memeber of this group ,i see that the joint venture as bought the free hold just on the Parkside foot print the other land on the old Pro logistic plan was on land belonging to Lord Newton , we will have to wait and see when the plans come out how much land the project will included

I cant see what the fuss is about over Langtree a read of their website says they are involved in a lot of joint ventures with local councils Warrington,Liverpool
,Trafford people trying to make something out of nothing going down that road and want to be careful what they are insinuating .

Newton/Earlestown as become a commuter town with everyone taking up the free parking in Earlestown/Newton and getting the train to their place of work spending their money in the area that they work ,the town is dieing if not not dead and if by building a railway terminal breathes new life into this town then iam all for it ,every local business will benefit from this like when Parkside ,The Bleach Works , Vulcan ,Sankey Suger ,McCorquodale and the old Viaduct railway works created employment for local people all gone now mostly replaced with commuter housing .This town was built by the railways and became prosperous by the railways if this development makes the town prosperous again that will be £6 million well spent .
[quote][p][bold]anthonywilson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chasmcn[/bold] wrote: You have to laugh at some of the posters on this site they complain that the council is do nothing about creating jobs ,the council link up with a company that is successful at completing big planning projects and they criticises that . Isn't Langtree a Newton company with its head office on crow lane east , i am sure if Newton was in Warrinton we would have a rail terminal by now . Anything thats green they build on . Enlighten me were is the £6 million figure coming from as its not in the article ,[/p][/quote]Its been obtained via a Freedom of Information Request from the following group: http://ourlocalvoice .co.uk/?page_id=12 St Helens Council have invested £6 million in a new venture company as part of the Parkside project development. Isn't it rather strange that this is not mentioned in the article as you have noticed or has made more public. Perhaps its got something do to with the fact Council Tax will be going up and more serviced being cut. As has already been pointed out it doesn't matter if Langree are based locally, it appears no other developer ever gets a look in and people are entitled to ask why.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the link so i had a read of what Our Local Voice had to say i noted that PAG was a memeber of this group ,i see that the joint venture as bought the free hold just on the Parkside foot print the other land on the old Pro logistic plan was on land belonging to Lord Newton , we will have to wait and see when the plans come out how much land the project will included I cant see what the fuss is about over Langtree a read of their website says they are involved in a lot of joint ventures with local councils Warrington,Liverpool ,Trafford people trying to make something out of nothing going down that road and want to be careful what they are insinuating . Newton/Earlestown as become a commuter town with everyone taking up the free parking in Earlestown/Newton and getting the train to their place of work spending their money in the area that they work ,the town is dieing if not not dead and if by building a railway terminal breathes new life into this town then iam all for it ,every local business will benefit from this like when Parkside ,The Bleach Works , Vulcan ,Sankey Suger ,McCorquodale and the old Viaduct railway works created employment for local people all gone now mostly replaced with commuter housing .This town was built by the railways and became prosperous by the railways if this development makes the town prosperous again that will be £6 million well spent . chasmcn
  • Score: -6

9:02pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chasmcn says...

quizling wrote:
probably backhanders, thats how these things are done
you got proof of this ?
[quote][p][bold]quizling[/bold] wrote: probably backhanders, thats how these things are done[/p][/quote]you got proof of this ? chasmcn
  • Score: -5

12:06am Wed 15 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Probably not , that's why he says probably??
Probably not , that's why he says probably?? barrie timpson
  • Score: 7

12:10pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Sankey says...

I don't think there is a serious question of corruption with langtree.

However £6m has been diverted from public funds at a time when we are being asked to fund a council tax increase and services are being cut. This is a high risk speculative commercial investment particularly when a very large private developer who has appraised the project for almost a decade has abandoned the scheme as uneconomic. Is this normally a transaction a local authority would be engaging in?

You also have to wonder are public funds being used for political posturing and promotion and therefore not being used appropriately ?

I honestly don't know are there precidents for this ? Certainly I have never heard of local authorities undertaking activities such as this.
I don't think there is a serious question of corruption with langtree. However £6m has been diverted from public funds at a time when we are being asked to fund a council tax increase and services are being cut. This is a high risk speculative commercial investment particularly when a very large private developer who has appraised the project for almost a decade has abandoned the scheme as uneconomic. Is this normally a transaction a local authority would be engaging in? You also have to wonder are public funds being used for political posturing and promotion and therefore not being used appropriately ? I honestly don't know are there precidents for this ? Certainly I have never heard of local authorities undertaking activities such as this. Sankey
  • Score: 11

1:32pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Peter Dean says...

An extra 17,000 HGV's - I pale at the thought. Does anyone else find it strange that when we want something as small as decent Christmas decorations in Newton there's no budget, but when they want to put an eyesore (that despite the claims of many, guarantees no jobs for the area) on our doorsteps they can find £6M? This town isn't about railways and works, it's about people and heritage, the same heritage that has been systematically destroyed year in year out by St Helens Council. The only thing this will bring is increased traffic to already dangerously overloaded road systems and a noisy eyesore to ruin what remains of the green space. If they want it so bad, let em build it in St Helens town centre and see how the locals there react.
An extra 17,000 HGV's - I pale at the thought. Does anyone else find it strange that when we want something as small as decent Christmas decorations in Newton there's no budget, but when they want to put an eyesore (that despite the claims of many, guarantees no jobs for the area) on our doorsteps they can find £6M? This town isn't about railways and works, it's about people and heritage, the same heritage that has been systematically destroyed year in year out by St Helens Council. The only thing this will bring is increased traffic to already dangerously overloaded road systems and a noisy eyesore to ruin what remains of the green space. If they want it so bad, let em build it in St Helens town centre and see how the locals there react. Peter Dean
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree