The CPS Shopping Centre on Common Lane is back in the planning spotlight, and this time the mood around Culcheth is somewhere between deeply unimpressed and reaching-for-the-biscuit-tin furious.
Plans have been submitted to Warrington Borough Council for works at the centre, including extra windows at first and second-floor levels, rooflights, a roof enclosure, bin and cycle storage, changes to the servicing area gate, and a revised parking layout. On paper, that sounds like a fairly dry planning application. In reality, locals see something much bigger lurking behind the paperwork.
The centre, owned by Shivat Haminim Capital Ltd since 2021, saw first-floor tenants handed notices earlier this year terminating their licences. Some traders had been there for decades, and their removal was described by many as cruel. The stated reason was fire safety, with tenants told that critical works were needed within weeks to deal with life-threatening hazards.
Fire safety is not something to be shrugged at, obviously. If a building needs urgent safety work, it needs doing properly and promptly. But the part that has really stuck in people’s throats is that it was later reported the fire service believed the work could be completed without evictions. That rather changes the flavour of the whole thing, from public safety to a rather suspicious-looking serving of property manoeuvring.
The latest application follows a similar one refused in November 2024. That refusal focused on the proposed bin and bike store, which was judged harmful to the street scene and character of the area. Concerns were also raised about smells, untidiness, pedestrian proximity, and a lack of clear information about collections and servicing. Nobody in Culcheth is desperate for a bin-store bouquet while popping to Sainsbury’s, funnily enough.
The applicant says those issues have now been considered. The revised plans put the bin and cycle storage into a single structure within the existing car park to the rear of the parish hall. The submitted documents say the ground floor contains a Sainsbury’s supermarket, seven retail units, and an office currently used as solicitors, while the first-floor retail units and partial second floor are vacant.
Here is the line that has lit the fuse: the applicant states that it has plans for CPS Centre which include introducing residential accommodation on the upper floors. The documents also say the bin and cycle stores could serve that residential accommodation, or alternatively the existing commercial space if housing does not happen.
That is why residents are calling it a Trojan horse. A few windows here, a rooflight there, a bin store tucked round the back, and suddenly the village starts wondering whether the real plan was always flats upstairs after traders were pushed out. Subtle it is not. Culcheth may be a village, but it is not daft.
More than 30 objections have been lodged, including from Culcheth and Glazebury Parish Council, Croft Parish Council, ward councillor Matt Smith, and the CPS Action Group. Many objectors argue the new plans only make token changes from the refused version and accuse the applicant of behaving in an unscrupulous manner.
One objector put it bluntly, saying the premises are not suitable for accommodation and questioning how a centre recently emptied on fire-risk grounds could now be considered for residential use. That is not a minor contradiction, it is the sort of planning logic that makes you stare into the middle distance outside Sainsbury’s.
Other concerns include harm to the community, parking pressure, highway safety, extra demand on schools and GP surgeries, and fears around crime and anti-social behaviour. Some of those worries may need proper evidence, but the broader point is fair: Culcheth’s centre is not just a building with units in it. It is part of how the village functions.
There are positives worth admitting, because we are not completely allergic to nuance. Empty upper floors are a waste, extra housing can be useful if done well, and better bin and cycle provision could tidy up the operation of the CPS Centre. Fire safety improvements are, of course, essential. Nobody sensible wants a building limping along with unresolved hazards.
But the criticism is equally obvious. If long-standing businesses were removed under the banner of urgent safety concerns, residents deserve straight answers about what changed, what the long-term plan is, and whether the centre is being reshaped around housing rather than village retail. Culcheth has already lost enough useful local space without decisions being dressed up in planning jargon and wheeled in through the side door.
The application reference is 2025/00891/FUL on the planning section of warrington.gov.uk. The original report was by Nathan Okell, Chief Reporter, for the Warrington Guardian, alongside some rather odd boilerplate references to USA Today, The Herald, and the Public Notice Portal, which added about as much local clarity as a foggy morning on Common Lane.
This comes amid wider planning rows across Warrington, from green belt anger over an unpermitted traveller site to proposals for more than 400 homes at the closed Padgate university campus, objections to a food waste plant, and calls linked to a new hospital, Broomfields repairs, and flooding action. In other words, planning pressure is everywhere, and Culcheth is not in the mood to be treated like an afterthought.