Minister will not step in to stop Coaching House homes plan

SMITHILLS Coaching House will be converted into homes — after Communities Secretary Eric Pickles made the decision not to step in and prevent the scheme from going ahead.

Developer Jones Homes had already won planning permission to convert the 17th Century Victorian Grade II listed building into eight properties.

A further 21 houses will be built on surrounding green belt land.

The proposal to transform the former restaurant, which closed in August last year, was approved by Bolton Council’s planning committee in December.

But the scheme had to be referred to Mr Pickles as it was on protected green belt land and is a heritage site.

He had originally asked for more time to consider the plans but has now decided not to “call in” the decision — and the development will now go ahead.

Brian Tetlow, chairman of the Bolton and District Civic Trust, said: “I’m astonished, I don’t think he’s doing his duty.

“I think there will be a continuing campaign to highlight the failure of councillors to recognise what an outrageous proposal this is.

“This is historic and precious land.”

Smithills councillor Roger Hayes, who has campaigned against the plans, added: “I’m deeply disappointed but not very surprised.

“The Secretary of State is usually only minded to intervene on issues of regional significance.”

The plans have proved hugely controversial, and raised a storm of objections from campaigners as well as English Heritage, the organisation charged with the protection of the country’s historic buildings.

Jones Homes insisted at last month’s planning meeting that the plans were the best way to preserve the future of the building.

Planning committee member Nick Peel said: “I’ll just reiterate the point I made at committee. It’s the only viable option that retains the Coaching House as a heritage asset.

“What goes on inside it, whether it’s a restaurant, a pub, whatever, is largely academic. We’re talking about the retention of a historic building in Bolton.”

The building was originally built as the stables for neighbouring Grade I listed Smithills Hall.

The project will be able to go ahead once a Section 106 legal agreement is signed for Jones Homes to fund construction of a car park and landscaping improvements.

A Bolton Council spokesman said: “The Department for Communities and Local Government has confirmed that the planning applications for Smithills Coaching House are not going to be referred to the Secretary of State and that they can be determined by Bolton Council.

“The planning department and legal services will now draw up a Section 106 legal agreement and the final decision notices for approval will be issued upon the completion of this.”

Jones Homes declined to comment.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:15am Thu 24 Jan 13

steveG says...

Recession - what recession.
Not if you're a councillor in Bolton.
Nice little earner - sell off the boroughs assets and let the good times roll.
Recession - what recession. Not if you're a councillor in Bolton. Nice little earner - sell off the boroughs assets and let the good times roll. steveG
  • Score: 0

11:37am Thu 24 Jan 13

Phil from Smithills says...

Unfortunatelly steveG., the Coaching House was sold of years ago, but it was in a dilapidated state when they did.

I was'nt too bothered about converting the Coaching House into houses, there is one within the building which was used for offices, but NOT houses on green field land.
.
Was'nt it also a Concervative government that allowed Birtenshaw to be built, dispite a covernant on the land.
Unfortunatelly steveG., the Coaching House was sold of years ago, but it was in a dilapidated state when they did. I was'nt too bothered about converting the Coaching House into houses, there is one within the building which was used for offices, but NOT houses on green field land. . Was'nt it also a Concervative government that allowed Birtenshaw to be built, dispite a covernant on the land. Phil from Smithills
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Thu 24 Jan 13

tracy1000 says...

probably receiving a nice back hander for pushing the development through
probably receiving a nice back hander for pushing the development through tracy1000
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Thu 24 Jan 13

boltonnut says...

To late to turn back now ,every body has been paid off
To late to turn back now ,every body has been paid off boltonnut
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Badvock says...

Green belt land at Birtenshaw, built on
Green belt land in Bromley Cross, built on
Green belt land at Smithills.........
Thing is these houses won't be what most of us would call standard family housing. 21 houses is small scale spo you can bet that these are upper tear 1/4 - 1/2 a mill a piece houses, in the face of such money the likes of English Heratige and the local populace have no sway in the matter. Call me cynical but something smells rotten in the state of Denmark..
Green belt land at Birtenshaw, built on Green belt land in Bromley Cross, built on Green belt land at Smithills......... Thing is these houses won't be what most of us would call standard family housing. 21 houses is small scale spo you can bet that these are upper tear 1/4 - 1/2 a mill a piece houses, in the face of such money the likes of English Heratige and the local populace have no sway in the matter. Call me cynical but something smells rotten in the state of Denmark.. Badvock
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Thu 24 Jan 13

tony000 says...

doris and chums hit the jackpot once again
doris and chums hit the jackpot once again tony000
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Thu 24 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...
Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story... DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Thu 24 Jan 13

steveG says...

DouglasMills wrote:
Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...
I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further.

I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened
.
Thanking you in anticipation.
[quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...[/p][/quote]I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further. I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened . Thanking you in anticipation. steveG
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Thu 24 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

steveG wrote:
DouglasMills wrote:
Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...
I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further.

I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened

.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale?

It is not owned by the Council for a start.

Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back.

Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying.
[quote][p][bold]steveG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...[/p][/quote]I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further. I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened . Thanking you in anticipation.[/p][/quote]Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale? It is not owned by the Council for a start. Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back. Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Thu 24 Jan 13

steveG says...

I don't think, Douglas,anyone has suggested Bolton council own the land,just that they used to and it was sold for a pittance to people holding public office who have subsequently benefitted.
I don't think, Douglas,anyone has suggested Bolton council own the land,just that they used to and it was sold for a pittance to people holding public office who have subsequently benefitted. steveG
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Thu 24 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

steveG wrote:
I don't think, Douglas,anyone has suggested Bolton council own the land,just that they used to and it was sold for a pittance to people holding public office who have subsequently benefitted.
Again, you have written without thinking about what you are saying, and knowingly written without any evidence.

When the coaching house was sold it was sold at a fair market price. This price was INDEPENDENTLY audited and judged to be fair.

Just because liars such as Cllr Hayes (who is motivated by his own political survival and nothing else) say otherwise, that doesn't make it true.

Think before you write.
[quote][p][bold]steveG[/bold] wrote: I don't think, Douglas,anyone has suggested Bolton council own the land,just that they used to and it was sold for a pittance to people holding public office who have subsequently benefitted.[/p][/quote]Again, you have written without thinking about what you are saying, and knowingly written without any evidence. When the coaching house was sold it was sold at a fair market price. This price was INDEPENDENTLY audited and judged to be fair. Just because liars such as Cllr Hayes (who is motivated by his own political survival and nothing else) say otherwise, that doesn't make it true. Think before you write. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Thu 24 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

Firstly, the council sold the land and its percentage of shares years ago - years before it closed.

Secondly, the council have been to laissez faire in its attitude towards Green Beklt land and should be forced to reconsider. As part of teh Section 106 agreement there should be stipulation of the total anmount of pollutants allowed within the area - especially of the close proximity of Smithills Hall and coule damage that property with the fumes and pollutants.

Thirdly, one says that the company who owned teh land and the restaurant made a loss - a company is stipulated as being an entity and as such therefore the people within the company lost NOTHING. In fact they will have probably gained from it, and one of those people being a said councillor!
Firstly, the council sold the land and its percentage of shares years ago - years before it closed. Secondly, the council have been to laissez faire in its attitude towards Green Beklt land and should be forced to reconsider. As part of teh Section 106 agreement there should be stipulation of the total anmount of pollutants allowed within the area - especially of the close proximity of Smithills Hall and coule damage that property with the fumes and pollutants. Thirdly, one says that the company who owned teh land and the restaurant made a loss - a company is stipulated as being an entity and as such therefore the people within the company lost NOTHING. In fact they will have probably gained from it, and one of those people being a said councillor! BWFC71
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Thu 24 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

BWFC71 wrote:
Firstly, the council sold the land and its percentage of shares years ago - years before it closed.

Secondly, the council have been to laissez faire in its attitude towards Green Beklt land and should be forced to reconsider. As part of teh Section 106 agreement there should be stipulation of the total anmount of pollutants allowed within the area - especially of the close proximity of Smithills Hall and coule damage that property with the fumes and pollutants.

Thirdly, one says that the company who owned teh land and the restaurant made a loss - a company is stipulated as being an entity and as such therefore the people within the company lost NOTHING. In fact they will have probably gained from it, and one of those people being a said councillor!
First, 'firstly' isn't a word.

Secondly, whilst technically the area in question is 'green belt' land - it has to be said that this is in name alone. The area in discussion is a tarmaced car park - building housing on this land is not causing a substantial problem. Indeed, the Council's independent Tree Officer stated the application would not have a detrimental effect on the woodland in the surrounding area.

Thirdly, the argument about pollutants is completely redundant. When the Coaching House was a thriving restaurant, the amount of vehicles travelling to and from the site were far greater than those that will be doing so after the development - nonsense argument.

Fourthly, the final point regarding the company is almost beyond belief - and is based upon illiterate business and economical beliefs. Once again, 'BWFC71' has written without any evidence whatsoever. Again I will state the facts: the owners of Smithills Coaching House have not made a penny from the sale and indeed have lost money in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back. Finaly, the Councillor in question is a VERY minor shareholder in the company and indeed has lost money, NOT gained money from the sale.

Educate yourself and come back with facts if you want to continue with a credible debate.
[quote][p][bold]BWFC71[/bold] wrote: Firstly, the council sold the land and its percentage of shares years ago - years before it closed. Secondly, the council have been to laissez faire in its attitude towards Green Beklt land and should be forced to reconsider. As part of teh Section 106 agreement there should be stipulation of the total anmount of pollutants allowed within the area - especially of the close proximity of Smithills Hall and coule damage that property with the fumes and pollutants. Thirdly, one says that the company who owned teh land and the restaurant made a loss - a company is stipulated as being an entity and as such therefore the people within the company lost NOTHING. In fact they will have probably gained from it, and one of those people being a said councillor![/p][/quote]First, 'firstly' isn't a word. Secondly, whilst technically the area in question is 'green belt' land - it has to be said that this is in name alone. The area in discussion is a tarmaced car park - building housing on this land is not causing a substantial problem. Indeed, the Council's independent Tree Officer stated the application would not have a detrimental effect on the woodland in the surrounding area. Thirdly, the argument about pollutants is completely redundant. When the Coaching House was a thriving restaurant, the amount of vehicles travelling to and from the site were far greater than those that will be doing so after the development - nonsense argument. Fourthly, the final point regarding the company is almost beyond belief - and is based upon illiterate business and economical beliefs. Once again, 'BWFC71' has written without any evidence whatsoever. Again I will state the facts: the owners of Smithills Coaching House have not made a penny from the sale and indeed have lost money in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back. Finaly, the Councillor in question is a VERY minor shareholder in the company and indeed has lost money, NOT gained money from the sale. Educate yourself and come back with facts if you want to continue with a credible debate. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Thu 24 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

Dougie,

I do believe you need a more modern Oxford English Dictionary as "firstly" is a word and fully acccerptable and been used for decades.

Therefore I trust you will educate yourself with the English language before you do any more replies.

Secondly, "Green Belt" means green belt there is no grey area in its meaning. It only becomes grey when financial gains are made by appropriate authorities. I know this for a fact due to how legal Land Charges are created and arrangements with the Land Registry. Therefore building on green belt, as rightly so, is a heated debate and in this case will spoil the surrounding area which is landscape - which is natural hillside fauna and flora.

Thirdly, the owner of the Restaurant was not a person but a legal entity know as a company which was registered at the Companies Registration Office (aka Companies House). Therefore in that sense you are correct in that it didn't make any more, but teh people behind the comapny still paid themselves a wage, bonuses and dividends along with many other extra's. therefore the people did make something from the vennture!!!

Fourthly, a Section 106 agreement, can advise on pollution levels and it should. There are going to be 8 separate houses within the old restaurant/stables building and 21 complete new builds. How much more pollution is that going to create compared to when it was a restaurant??? I know, for definite, pollution will increase as I did a similar strategy for my thesis when I was doing Environmenntal Sciences at university!

It is you that needs to read around the subject and educate yourself with the pros and cons of pollution and how much it will increase by, and you ought to know the true meaning of entity. Research is a good tool when debating on thsi forum - just a shame that some think they are knowledgable but fall flat with generalisms.
Dougie, I do believe you need a more modern Oxford English Dictionary as "firstly" is a word and fully acccerptable and been used for decades. Therefore I trust you will educate yourself with the English language before you do any more replies. Secondly, "Green Belt" means green belt there is no grey area in its meaning. It only becomes grey when financial gains are made by appropriate authorities. I know this for a fact due to how legal Land Charges are created and arrangements with the Land Registry. Therefore building on green belt, as rightly so, is a heated debate and in this case will spoil the surrounding area which is landscape - which is natural hillside fauna and flora. Thirdly, the owner of the Restaurant was not a person but a legal entity know as a company which was registered at the Companies Registration Office (aka Companies House). Therefore in that sense you are correct in that it didn't make any more, but teh people behind the comapny still paid themselves a wage, bonuses and dividends along with many other extra's. therefore the people did make something from the vennture!!! Fourthly, a Section 106 agreement, can advise on pollution levels and it should. There are going to be 8 separate houses within the old restaurant/stables building and 21 complete new builds. How much more pollution is that going to create compared to when it was a restaurant??? I know, for definite, pollution will increase as I did a similar strategy for my thesis when I was doing Environmenntal Sciences at university! It is you that needs to read around the subject and educate yourself with the pros and cons of pollution and how much it will increase by, and you ought to know the true meaning of entity. Research is a good tool when debating on thsi forum - just a shame that some think they are knowledgable but fall flat with generalisms. BWFC71
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Thu 24 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

Unfortunately, BWFC71 (bless), you have fundamentaly changed the assertaions you were advancing. Presumably this means you recognise you were wrong but were not big enough to admit it.

You have now stated the owners made money from the venture in terms of wages - throughout the course of a 50 year business of course this is the case. The matter in question was whether the owners were making a profit from the sale of the building - they are not!! They are losing money as a result of loans they have made to the business which they will not be able to recover. (Also, I'm interested to know what are the 'many other extras' the owners paid themselves - presumably once again you have written without any evidence.)

Re pollution - you do not know 'for definite' that pollution will increase, that is simply arrogance, regardless of the degree you undertook at university. Look at the simple logistics: 29 houses v 3 large function rooms and dining area with 100+ guests at lunch and evening. I do not believe there will be a dramatic increase in pollution, I believe, if anything, there will be less polution.

Again, re green-belt land, just look at the area in question. It is a tarmaced car park. This point was made by Labour and Tory Councillors at the planning meeting - the car park is not an area of outstanding beauty! Perhaps you did not read my last reply in which I told you the Council's Independent Tree Officer stated the surrounding woodland WILL NOT be affected.
Unfortunately, BWFC71 (bless), you have fundamentaly changed the assertaions you were advancing. Presumably this means you recognise you were wrong but were not big enough to admit it. You have now stated the owners made money from the venture in terms of wages - throughout the course of a 50 year business of course this is the case. The matter in question was whether the owners were making a profit from the sale of the building - they are not!! They are losing money as a result of loans they have made to the business which they will not be able to recover. (Also, I'm interested to know what are the 'many other extras' the owners paid themselves - presumably once again you have written without any evidence.) Re pollution - you do not know 'for definite' that pollution will increase, that is simply arrogance, regardless of the degree you undertook at university. Look at the simple logistics: 29 houses v 3 large function rooms and dining area with 100+ guests at lunch and evening. I do not believe there will be a dramatic increase in pollution, I believe, if anything, there will be less polution. Again, re green-belt land, just look at the area in question. It is a tarmaced car park. This point was made by Labour and Tory Councillors at the planning meeting - the car park is not an area of outstanding beauty! Perhaps you did not read my last reply in which I told you the Council's Independent Tree Officer stated the surrounding woodland WILL NOT be affected. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Thu 24 Jan 13

Mike23 says...

First, 'firstly' isn't a word....

No you are quite right, it is actually an adverb, meaning " to begin with"...

Educate yourself Dougie and 'finally', not sure what you wrote to begin your penultimate dribble, but it is painfully clear that you have no understanding of the legal process; or, for that matter, commercial business.

Laws are there to control and allow those persons/organisation
s wealthy enough to gain commercially. They use the legal framework to ensure that their agendas cannot be challenged in an moral way.

Take for example, tax evasion.
As an accountant, we are encouraged to try and manipulate commercial transactions to minimise our tax liabilities.

Yet, when banks/brokers/trader
s/companies use off shore facilities to mitigate their annual liabilities, this is seen as wrong.

Most people would love to be in a position where they could pay nil tax and enjoy the fruits of living off a six or seven digit income.

People over the last few hundred years fought hard for their rights and now, these rights are being eroded.

Not too dissimilar to those wealthy individuals who imported and shipped slaves around the commonwealth and called it business.

Business is dirty, make no bones about it. People hide behind committees, legislation...they are just the means to legitimise transactions for the public eyes.

"Oh, an independent tree officer said it won't be a problem"...that makes it alright I guess.

Our problem, is that we are too passive; it was only forty years ago that miners received proper compensation for highly dangerous work.

How ironic that much of the industry was earmarked for closure, not long after!

I dispair at how little we regard our environment. I cringe at how little we value our town, our health and our well being.

Only this week, I read that Primary School governance is having to review guidance on how homophobic incidents are to be reported in primary schools?

Just in case you missed something...IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS.

How is that possible?

Our approach to wealth creation, valuing human life, encouraging human progression, instilling values & morals, promoting enjoyment and vitality is through what label we have on our clothing, how much ethanol we consume, and the length of the number on a piece of paper we receive from an organisation each month.

By all means, make some new houses, but also make sure that as people, we treasure our heritage, and that we don't loose our identity.

So Dougie, apologise to BWFC71, he may not be able to type and express himself, as eloquently as you, but what he states, is very valid.

Too much laissez faire is at the heart of all our problems that we face.
First, 'firstly' isn't a word.... No you are quite right, it is actually an adverb, meaning " to begin with"... Educate yourself Dougie and 'finally', not sure what you wrote to begin your penultimate dribble, but it is painfully clear that you have no understanding of the legal process; or, for that matter, commercial business. Laws are there to control and allow those persons/organisation s wealthy enough to gain commercially. They use the legal framework to ensure that their agendas cannot be challenged in an moral way. Take for example, tax evasion. As an accountant, we are encouraged to try and manipulate commercial transactions to minimise our tax liabilities. Yet, when banks/brokers/trader s/companies use off shore facilities to mitigate their annual liabilities, this is seen as wrong. Most people would love to be in a position where they could pay nil tax and enjoy the fruits of living off a six or seven digit income. People over the last few hundred years fought hard for their rights and now, these rights are being eroded. Not too dissimilar to those wealthy individuals who imported and shipped slaves around the commonwealth and called it business. Business is dirty, make no bones about it. People hide behind committees, legislation...they are just the means to legitimise transactions for the public eyes. "Oh, an independent tree officer said it won't be a problem"...that makes it alright I guess. Our problem, is that we are too passive; it was only forty years ago that miners received proper compensation for highly dangerous work. How ironic that much of the industry was earmarked for closure, not long after! I dispair at how little we regard our environment. I cringe at how little we value our town, our health and our well being. Only this week, I read that Primary School governance is having to review guidance on how homophobic incidents are to be reported in primary schools? Just in case you missed something...IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS. How is that possible? Our approach to wealth creation, valuing human life, encouraging human progression, instilling values & morals, promoting enjoyment and vitality is through what label we have on our clothing, how much ethanol we consume, and the length of the number on a piece of paper we receive from an organisation each month. By all means, make some new houses, but also make sure that as people, we treasure our heritage, and that we don't loose our identity. So Dougie, apologise to BWFC71, he may not be able to type and express himself, as eloquently as you, but what he states, is very valid. Too much laissez faire is at the heart of all our problems that we face. Mike23
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Thu 24 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

DouglasMills wrote:
Unfortunately, BWFC71 (bless), you have fundamentaly changed the assertaions you were advancing. Presumably this means you recognise you were wrong but were not big enough to admit it.

You have now stated the owners made money from the venture in terms of wages - throughout the course of a 50 year business of course this is the case. The matter in question was whether the owners were making a profit from the sale of the building - they are not!! They are losing money as a result of loans they have made to the business which they will not be able to recover. (Also, I'm interested to know what are the 'many other extras' the owners paid themselves - presumably once again you have written without any evidence.)

Re pollution - you do not know 'for definite' that pollution will increase, that is simply arrogance, regardless of the degree you undertook at university. Look at the simple logistics: 29 houses v 3 large function rooms and dining area with 100+ guests at lunch and evening. I do not believe there will be a dramatic increase in pollution, I believe, if anything, there will be less polution.

Again, re green-belt land, just look at the area in question. It is a tarmaced car park. This point was made by Labour and Tory Councillors at the planning meeting - the car park is not an area of outstanding beauty! Perhaps you did not read my last reply in which I told you the Council's Independent Tree Officer stated the surrounding woodland WILL NOT be affected.
Have you ever been to Smithills Coaching House?

The tarmaced car park can hold, up to most 4 houses, of the type Jones Homes are planning, therefore where are the other new build going - yes that is correct they are being built on fields!!! Yes re-read that again - FIELDS!!! Is that not destroying green-belt? Green belt is not about just trees, its about the land as a whole the greenery, the wildlife, and more importantly its about keeping the land as it is in protecting the environment in general.

As I have stated already the company was the owner of the restaurant. The company, itself is a legal entity and as such has the same rights as a person running his own business. The company made no money from the sale but disclosure - being as good as it is due to the laws of the land means we do not know whether the people behind the company made any money from the sale or not! But I know for a fact that shareholders in 99.9999999% of times do make money from business sales - you tell me any company that has been sold where shareholders have actually made a loss or no money whatsoever!!!
If you know business personal loans to a business is actually not allowed, but Director Guarantees are allowed - again this is due to companies being an entity in their own right. But director Guarantees are not loans but the secure business loans from which the company has drawn - and yet again 99.9999999% of times these are not recompensed due to the actual fact that the guarantees are not worth teh paper they are written on!!!! And as the above poster rightly says accountants will find ways in which these business loans are never paid back and as such the banks normally right these loans off.
[quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately, BWFC71 (bless), you have fundamentaly changed the assertaions you were advancing. Presumably this means you recognise you were wrong but were not big enough to admit it. You have now stated the owners made money from the venture in terms of wages - throughout the course of a 50 year business of course this is the case. The matter in question was whether the owners were making a profit from the sale of the building - they are not!! They are losing money as a result of loans they have made to the business which they will not be able to recover. (Also, I'm interested to know what are the 'many other extras' the owners paid themselves - presumably once again you have written without any evidence.) Re pollution - you do not know 'for definite' that pollution will increase, that is simply arrogance, regardless of the degree you undertook at university. Look at the simple logistics: 29 houses v 3 large function rooms and dining area with 100+ guests at lunch and evening. I do not believe there will be a dramatic increase in pollution, I believe, if anything, there will be less polution. Again, re green-belt land, just look at the area in question. It is a tarmaced car park. This point was made by Labour and Tory Councillors at the planning meeting - the car park is not an area of outstanding beauty! Perhaps you did not read my last reply in which I told you the Council's Independent Tree Officer stated the surrounding woodland WILL NOT be affected.[/p][/quote]Have you ever been to Smithills Coaching House? The tarmaced car park can hold, up to most 4 houses, of the type Jones Homes are planning, therefore where are the other new build going - yes that is correct they are being built on fields!!! Yes re-read that again - FIELDS!!! Is that not destroying green-belt? Green belt is not about just trees, its about the land as a whole the greenery, the wildlife, and more importantly its about keeping the land as it is in protecting the environment in general. As I have stated already the company was the owner of the restaurant. The company, itself is a legal entity and as such has the same rights as a person running his own business. The company made no money from the sale but disclosure - being as good as it is due to the laws of the land means we do not know whether the people behind the company made any money from the sale or not! But I know for a fact that shareholders in 99.9999999% of times do make money from business sales - you tell me any company that has been sold where shareholders have actually made a loss or no money whatsoever!!! If you know business personal loans to a business is actually not allowed, but Director Guarantees are allowed - again this is due to companies being an entity in their own right. But director Guarantees are not loans but the secure business loans from which the company has drawn - and yet again 99.9999999% of times these are not recompensed due to the actual fact that the guarantees are not worth teh paper they are written on!!!! And as the above poster rightly says accountants will find ways in which these business loans are never paid back and as such the banks normally right these loans off. BWFC71
  • Score: 0

12:11am Fri 25 Jan 13

Anne W. says...

First Bolton town centre
Now Smithills Coaching house

I wonder how Bury and Wigan councils would have dealt with our and future generation heritage.

Smithills Hall is a wonderful historical attraction, Smithills country park is splendid recreation.
Transformation of the coaching house to compliment these assests
would greatly benifit the people of Bolton.

Will these Houses give the same benifit to the people of Bolton
First Bolton town centre Now Smithills Coaching house I wonder how Bury and Wigan councils would have dealt with our and future generation heritage. Smithills Hall is a wonderful historical attraction, Smithills country park is splendid recreation. Transformation of the coaching house to compliment these assests would greatly benifit the people of Bolton. Will these Houses give the same benifit to the people of Bolton Anne W.
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Fri 25 Jan 13

tony000 says...

DouglasMills wrote:
steveG wrote:
DouglasMills wrote:
Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...
I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further.

I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened


.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale?

It is not owned by the Council for a start.

Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back.

Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying.
of course they will get a good back hander and no there will be no evidance thats what councilrs mp are very good at covering there miss deeds.
[quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]steveG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...[/p][/quote]I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further. I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened . Thanking you in anticipation.[/p][/quote]Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale? It is not owned by the Council for a start. Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back. Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying.[/p][/quote]of course they will get a good back hander and no there will be no evidance thats what councilrs mp are very good at covering there miss deeds. tony000
  • Score: 0

10:39am Sat 26 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

tony000 wrote:
DouglasMills wrote:
steveG wrote:
DouglasMills wrote:
Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...
I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further.

I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened



.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale?

It is not owned by the Council for a start.

Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back.

Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying.
of course they will get a good back hander and no there will be no evidance thats what councilrs mp are very good at covering there miss deeds.
Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]tony000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]steveG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DouglasMills[/bold] wrote: Some ill-educated buffoons commenting on this story...[/p][/quote]I hope you're right Douglas and people who earn their living from the public purse haven't benefited further. I for one am willing to be educated/enlightened . Thanking you in anticipation.[/p][/quote]Can anyone provide a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that Bolton Councillors are making a single penny from this sale? It is not owned by the Council for a start. Further, the private company that have sold the building have not made a single penny in profit from the sale - in fact they have lost thousands of pounds in terms of loans to the business that they will never get back. Before further comments, please think about whether you have any evidence at all to support what you are saying.[/p][/quote]of course they will get a good back hander and no there will be no evidance thats what councilrs mp are very good at covering there miss deeds.[/p][/quote]Idiot. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Sat 26 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

Douglas before you make other comment on this report please have proof.

Can you verify, with hard proof, that Tony000 is an idiot?
Douglas before you make other comment on this report please have proof. Can you verify, with hard proof, that Tony000 is an idiot? BWFC71
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Sat 26 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

He's provided more than enough evidence in his vacuous post to support my assertion that he is an idiot.
He's provided more than enough evidence in his vacuous post to support my assertion that he is an idiot. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Sat 26 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

In what way?

One may comment from the heart, or even factually from their head, but not one comment on this thread is deemed to be idiotic. Tony000 is presumably speaking from his heart about the situation, and to be fair the situation does seem strange!

Why sell to Jones' Homes when there were more than one interested party in wanting to buy the business as a going concern, at the full asking price, and that was before Jones' Homes bought it?
In what way? One may comment from the heart, or even factually from their head, but not one comment on this thread is deemed to be idiotic. Tony000 is presumably speaking from his heart about the situation, and to be fair the situation does seem strange! Why sell to Jones' Homes when there were more than one interested party in wanting to buy the business as a going concern, at the full asking price, and that was before Jones' Homes bought it? BWFC71
  • Score: 0

12:07am Sun 27 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

BWFC71 wrote:
In what way?

One may comment from the heart, or even factually from their head, but not one comment on this thread is deemed to be idiotic. Tony000 is presumably speaking from his heart about the situation, and to be fair the situation does seem strange!

Why sell to Jones' Homes when there were more than one interested party in wanting to buy the business as a going concern, at the full asking price, and that was before Jones' Homes bought it?
That isn't true though.
[quote][p][bold]BWFC71[/bold] wrote: In what way? One may comment from the heart, or even factually from their head, but not one comment on this thread is deemed to be idiotic. Tony000 is presumably speaking from his heart about the situation, and to be fair the situation does seem strange! Why sell to Jones' Homes when there were more than one interested party in wanting to buy the business as a going concern, at the full asking price, and that was before Jones' Homes bought it?[/p][/quote]That isn't true though. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Sun 27 Jan 13

BWFC71 says...

Is it not?

Are you sure?

Infact I know someone who has been wanting to buy the restaurant, as a going concern, ever since the financials problems came to light and each time he asked about it he was turned down - why is that?

It is one reason why he went to the papers soon after the news that Jones Homes had bought the land, to highlight the fact that a local businessman had been turned down, mulitple times, the opportunity to keep the restaurant going!
Is it not? Are you sure? Infact I know someone who has been wanting to buy the restaurant, as a going concern, ever since the financials problems came to light and each time he asked about it he was turned down - why is that? It is one reason why he went to the papers soon after the news that Jones Homes had bought the land, to highlight the fact that a local businessman had been turned down, mulitple times, the opportunity to keep the restaurant going! BWFC71
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Sun 27 Jan 13

DouglasMills says...

BWFC71 wrote:
Is it not?

Are you sure?

Infact I know someone who has been wanting to buy the restaurant, as a going concern, ever since the financials problems came to light and each time he asked about it he was turned down - why is that?

It is one reason why he went to the papers soon after the news that Jones Homes had bought the land, to highlight the fact that a local businessman had been turned down, mulitple times, the opportunity to keep the restaurant going!
Who is this person you know then?

Absolute lies.
[quote][p][bold]BWFC71[/bold] wrote: Is it not? Are you sure? Infact I know someone who has been wanting to buy the restaurant, as a going concern, ever since the financials problems came to light and each time he asked about it he was turned down - why is that? It is one reason why he went to the papers soon after the news that Jones Homes had bought the land, to highlight the fact that a local businessman had been turned down, mulitple times, the opportunity to keep the restaurant going![/p][/quote]Who is this person you know then? Absolute lies. DouglasMills
  • Score: 0

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