Following on from meeting our local councillors, a number of us met with Josh Simons MP on Friday January 23rd to discuss the Winstanley Hall and associated greenbelt development planning applications.

It was a constructive and serious meeting. We were able to set out why this is not a normal housing proposal but an enabling development on one of the most sensitive sites in the borough, and why the evidential bar for decision-making is therefore much higher than usual.

We raised a number of legitimate concerns that go to whether the current applications are genuinely decision-ready and defensible, and whether it would be responsible to support them.

We were also clear that this is not about opposing housing. It is about whether anyone should back a high-risk, poorly evidenced proposal on such a sensitive site when brownfield alternatives exist elsewhere in the borough.

Josh listened carefully, engaged with the evidence, and now recognises that the application carries significant risk and unresolved issues.

Importantly, he now accepts that there is a real difference between supporting housing delivery in principle across the borough and supporting this application as proposed.

He also acknowledged that treating the proposal as inevitable, or as the “last chance” to save the Hall, is not a sound basis for decision-making, particularly where key questions about deliverability, permanent heritage loss, community risk and long-term outcomes remain unanswered.

The outcome of the meeting is that our MP is now actively engaged, understands the seriousness of the concerns being raised by residents, and will be representing the community’s interests as this process moves forward.

This matters.

It means the issues being raised are not being dismissed as noise. They are now recognised as legitimate governance and decision-quality concerns.

We are not against housing development.

We have already seen significant housing growth in and around Winstanley and Highfield.

We are against bad planning decisions becoming irreversible and adversely impacting both our greenbelt and our heritage.

It is also important to be clear with the community about one point.

Many people understandably assume that this development will ‘save the Hall’ and create a public heritage asset.

That is not what is being proposed.

What is actually proposed is the retention of the external façade, with the historic interior stripped out and replaced by a private block of flats. There is no meaningful commitment to restoring the Hall as a heritage building or making it publicly accessible as a cultural or community space.

On the evidence currently available, the idea that this proposal sorts the Hall out is not correct.

There is no guaranteed, ring-fenced funding for proper restoration, and no binding mechanism that ensures the Hall is restored early or at all before housing is delivered. The risks are being front-loaded onto the community, while the heritage benefit is deferred and uncertain.

We will be sharing further information on this at a later stage so people can see for themselves why the current proposal does not provide the reassurance it claims to.

We have a number of follow-up actions from this meeting and will be progressing them over the coming weeks.

We will continue to keep people informed with substance, not spin, as this progresses.