Here we go again, Culcheth. Shivat Haminim Capital Ltd has resubmitted plans to convert parts of the upper floors of the CPS Shopping Centre on Common Lane into residential flats, after Warrington Borough Council refused a previous version earlier this year.
The proposal concerns part of the first and second floors, with the developer seeking prior approval to change the use from office space to residential. The new application says it would create 14 residential units, and the planning documents claim the flats meet national space standards. Lovely. Boxes ticked, clipboards satisfied, kettle presumably on.
For those who have not been following this saga, and frankly deserve a medal for their peace of mind, this all started after traders at the CPS Shopping Centre were evicted early last year. Some had been there for decades, so the phrase “cruelly evicted” used at the time did not feel especially dramatic to many locals, it felt rather accurate.
Shivat Haminim Capital Ltd, which acquired the centre in 2021, said the decision was linked to fire safety concerns. Tenants were told a report had highlighted “critical works” needed within weeks to remove “life-threatening hazards”. That sounds serious, and fire safety must never be treated casually. But the plot thickened when it was later reported that the fire service believed the works could be carried out without evicting tenants. That detail has stuck in local throats like a dry biscuit.
The earlier plans to repurpose the upper floors for residential use were withdrawn last summer after around 150 objections. Then the idea came back in November, attracting yet more objections, before Warrington Borough Council refused permission in January.
One objector summed up the mood bluntly, saying the change would be “catastrophic” and that Culcheth needs more amenities, not more living space. It is hard to disagree with the basic point. A village centre should not become a place where shops quietly disappear upstairs and everyone is expected to clap because somebody has discovered the word “residential”.
Planning officers previously raised concerns that some of the proposed apartments would be significantly affected by nearby noise, and that the mitigation measures were not good enough. Which, in plain Culcheth English, means putting flats above a functioning shopping centre is not automatically a stroke of genius just because the floorplan looks tidy.
The latest documents say the new application has addressed the council’s earlier reasons for refusal. That is the positive bit, at least on paper. Developers are allowed to revise schemes, and empty upper floors are hardly a triumph for village life. Sensible reuse of vacant space can be a good thing, especially if done properly, safely and with some respect for the place it sits in.
But the criticism remains glaring. Culcheth has already lost businesses from that centre, and residents are rightly wary of plans that feel less like village improvement and more like asset-squeezing in a nice blazer. The ground floor still includes Sainsbury’s, seven retail units and an office used by solicitors, while the first-floor retail units and partial second floor are vacant. The question is whether flats are the best answer, or simply the most profitable one.
The Warrington Guardian report by Nathan Okell also came wrapped in the usual online furniture about the Public Notice Portal, USA Today and The Herald, but the local issue is much more straightforward: the future of a key bit of Culcheth village centre is still being contested, and people here have not forgotten how this all began.
The current planning reference is 2026/00199/PA3MA. Expect this one to generate plenty more raised eyebrows around Culcheth, and probably a few very pointed conversations in the Sainsbury’s queue.