What Labour & land owners/developers have planned for Sefton’s East Parishes – Green Belt building on a massive scale – Posting 6 What it all means

My 5 previous recent postings on this subject have ranged across the East Parishes communities of Sefton and outlined the huge development plans that Labour-run Sefton Council and land owners/developers have in store for us.

Here I am looking at Green Belt & high grade agricultural land off Lambshear Lane in Lydiate which Labour-run Sefton Council is threatening to allow building upon.

Here I am looking at Green Belt & high grade agricultural land off Lambshear Lane in Lydiate which Labour-run Sefton Council is threatening to allow building upon.

Of course not all the proposals will go forward or see the light of day but some, as I have explained, have already been put in the draft Local Plan for the Borough which Labour councillors voted for unanimously on Sefton Council.

Of course Labour have been running with the hare and hounds throughout this process. They even started by proclaiming they were the party to protect the Green Belt from development! Yes, I know it sounds ludicrous now as they have actually been doing the opposite. Their latest tactic is to oppose the sites put forward by developers and land owners so they can look like they are fighting for the Green Belt but of course they are at the same time likely to approve building on other sites that they have picked to be concreted over.

Labour are of course entitled to their opinions but why on earth say they were going to fight for the Green Belt and then vote to build on it? That’s not honest politics. I wonder if there is an committed environmental campaigner amongst them? Have you heard a local Labour politician say they are going to try to defend high grade agricultural land from development and thought they meant it?

And yes housing is obviously needed and we environmental campaigners know that both within the Lib Dems and in the wider ‘green’ movement. That is why we have openly said sites such as Ashworth South should be developed for housing because whilst it is in Green Belt it has been built upon before.

But where to from here? More decisions will be taken in October and the Local Plan process will rumble on until it is finalised in April/May of 2015. Whether it be a good outcome for Sefton and and its environment I very much doubt. But will even more development be forced upon Sefton if Labour comes to power nationally? Probably yes, as Ed Miliband has been backing even higher house building targets. Will we manage to get high grade agricultural land protected from development. We can only try but how long it will take before the political classes in Westminster hear that penny drop?

If we can’t get up and fight for our environment what else will we fight for? I remain unashamedly an environmental campaigner who will defend Sefton’s high grade agricultural land from development. No apologies from me on that score.


What land owners/developers have planned for Sefton’s East Parishes – Green Belt building on a massive scale – Posting 2 Western Maghull & Lydiate

My first posting covered the 3 massive Green Belt sites to the north east of Lydiate – 2 being promoted by Labour run Sefton Council and 1 by a land owner.

Now we move to the west of Maghull & Lydiate to look at another potential development of colossal proportions. Click on the map to enlarge it:-

This huge site wraps around the western side of Maghull and into Lydiate. The red dotted line is the Maghull/Lydiate boundary which goes through the site.

This huge site wraps around the western side of Maghull and into Lydiate. The red line is the Maghull/Lydiate boundary which goes through the site. It runs from south of Green Lane in Maghull to Bells Lane in Lydiate. The small detached area of blue is a separate land owner proposed development between Sefton Meadows recycling Centre and the Cheshire Lines Path.

The whole large blue area is presently designated as agricultural land and much of it is in use for that purpose. Like the land to the north east of Lydiate it is all high grade agricultural land which grows our food.

It is easy to imagine how this development could, should it gain the green light, utterly change the character of Maghull & Lydiate. It is without doubt a huge urban extension and I am unsurprisingly told a very unwelcome one amongst Maghull & Lydiate Folk.

My next posting will cover the east of Maghull where Labour-run Sefton wants to concrete over acres and acres of high grade agricultural land and Green Belt.

What Labour & land owners/developers have planned for Sefton’s East Parishes – Green Belt building on a massive scale – Posting 1 Lydiate

If there is one really big hot topic in Sefton and particularly in it’s East Parishes Communities, it is the consequences of the Borough’s Local Plan. I have covered this matter many times before concentrating on Labour-run Sefton’s mad dash to build on massive swathes of Green Belt and high grade agricultural land.

The Local Plan is at draft stage at present and I thought it useful to look at the East Parishes area in detail because, by far, it is the part of the Borough where both the Labour Party and developers are hell bent on building on a huge number of fields that are presently growing our food.

Lets start with Lydiate – best to click on the map to enlarge it:-

This shot shows the north eastern part of Lydiate and 3 massive development sites

This photo shows the north eastern part of Lydiate and 3 massive development sites. The red line at the bottom of the map is the boundary between Lydiate and Maghull. At the top right of the map is Aughton Civil Parish in West Lancs. The thick grey line is the A59 – Northway.

The blue area is what land owners/developer wants to see built upon. For reference it encompasses the land used for the popular but controversial car boot sales to the east of Northway (A59). The site runs from Robins Island up to Kenyons Lane and then through the fields to the east of Northway.

The two beige coloured areas are what Sefton Council under its Labour rulers wants to see developed. The first site, known to some as the Tyson’s Triangle, runs along the A59 from Robins Island up towards Kenyons Lane on the western side of Northway with the backs of the properties in Kenyons Lane and Liverpool Road forming the other two sides of the triangle. The other much larger site is bounded by Liverpool Road, Lambshear Lane, Sandy Lane and Moss Lane and it also stretches almost from Robins Island right up to Lambshear Lane/Sandy Lane. These sites have already been penciled in by Labour councillors who have voted for them to be ‘reserve’ [building] sites in the draft Local Plan. Reserve to me means they will be developed but not necessarily as quickly as other sites.

Just about all of these areas, blue or beige, are presently farmed and are of high grade agricultural land quality as well as being Green Belt.

Lydiate Parish Council has objected to all 3 sites being developed.

A petition against building on Green Belt being presented to Cllr. Dave Russell Chairman of Lydiate Parish Council.

A petition against building on Green Belt being presented to Cllr. Dave Russell Chairman of Lydiate Parish Council. The land behind the campaigners is down for development under Labour’s draft Local Plan for Sefton.

This mad dash to build an urban extension onto Lydiate could vastly enlarge its population and destroy the semi-rural aspect of this popular place to live.

Don’t forget it’s Labour who are backing housing developments on 2 of these 3 sites and the Lib Dems who are fighting the environmental cause to stop them. Sefton Lib Dems are happy to share a common agenda with local independent and non-party political campaigners.

My next posting on this subject will look at other parts of Sefton’s East Parishes communities who, like Lydiate, are facing massive building plans from their Labour-run Council and developers.

Sefton Lib Dems – putting our environment first – Local Plan ‘additional sites’

Sefton Council Lib Dem Opposition Group
Leader Cllr. Iain Brodie Browne

7th August 2014

Liberal Democrat response to the ‘additional sites’ consultation
with regard to Sefton Council’s draft Local Plan

It may well be useful for us to start with a reminder of the Lib Dem approach to Sefton Council’s Local Plan in terms of our previous detailed submission of 26th September 2013. From the headline issues in that earlier submission we will then frame our response to the additional sites for potential development, put forward by land owners and developers.

This is what we said in September 2013:-

Labour’s draft Local Plan for Sefton is inadequate, fails to protect high grade agricultural land and lacks ambition

The Liberal Democrat Group on Sefton Council have major concerns about the draft Local Plan and the preferred ‘Option 2’ put forward by the Labour administration on Sefton Council.

Executive Summary

Our fundamental concerns are:-

• The draft plan lacks robustness in terms of population predictions and therefore the housing requirements flowing from the data used can’t be anything more than vaguely informed guestimates.
• The effect of taking the plan forward based on potentially flawed data means that high grade agricultural land, within Green Belt, will be designated for house building when this may well not be necessary.
• The seeming lack of detailed working with West Lancashire Borough Council is worrying as they are the local authority that Sefton has by far the largest boundary and most significant community of interest with.
• The leading references in the draft plan to Merseyside Councils are misleading and unhelpful because the centre and north of the Borough (the majority of the Sefton) rightly expects the Council to be heavily engaged with West Lancashire as a priority with the southern Merseyside Councils being of less significance for two thirds of the Borough’s population.
• The flawed method of public consultation used by the Council may well have reduced the number of residents who felt able and comfortable to participate in the process.
• The plan is all but silent on some major issues across the Borough that need to be planned for.


Why is 500 the answer again?
The plan’s preferred Option 2 will mean that each year 510 houses will be built in the Borough – this is a remarkably similar figure to the target of 500 houses per year which was previously imposed on the Borough via the last Labour Government’s Regional Spatial Strategy.

Bearing in mind that after the RSS figure was imposed the UK entered into and is still suffering from the effects of a massive economic recession and that the draft plan is allegedly built upon new economic and population data etc. the similarity of the proposed house building figures is at best questionable.

It is also the case that the draft plan seems to indicate a much higher figure (above 660) of houses ‘need’ be built per year. In another context the Council’s public statements say that 5,000 houses need to be built in the existing urban areas. These figures are at best confusing.

Concerns about the quality and accuracy of data
We have great concern about the quality and accuracy of the data used in the production of the options within the plan. This point is made in the context of the Council’s lead consultants, NLP, openly saying at a Local Plan Stakeholder meeting in May of 2013, at Bootle Town Hall that the Borough’s year on year declining population is suddenly going to go into reverse and significantly rise again. What’s more they said to this forum that the rise would be caused by inward migration. When questioned to explain this statement they said that the migrants would be made up of people moving into Sefton from other parts of the UK, people returning to Sefton who had moved away and migrants from outside the UK. To date we have not seen what we accept as credible data to robustly back up these assertions.

Loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land
The Green Belt surrounding Sefton’s diverse communities is almost totally comprised of high grade agricultural land often referred to as ‘best and most versatile’. However, Option 2 clearly indicates that a significant part of this land, which is presently used for the growing of food, will be lost to housing developments if the Council presses ahead and confirms the preferred option of the Labour administration.

Our clear view is that compromising high grade agricultural land is a hugely negative step backwards and that it is environmentally unsustainable.

Urban Extensions
The potential size increases of some communities, e.g. Maghull to increase by nearly 25% and Lydiate by 35% will fundamentally change the character of these parishes. The Local Plan process was supposed to prevent such significant increases and we feel that the scale of the proposals is therefore unacceptable.

Some small Green Belt compromises are possible
We do realise that some land that technically falls within Green Belt can sensibly be developed because it is often not high quality agricultural land.

The Power House in Formby, land east of Southport at Kew, the Pontins site in Ainsdale and the presently vacant Ashworth South site in Maghull are examples of sites where a reasonable compromise can be made. The Power House, Pontins and Ashworth South are clear examples of sites which have previously been built upon to some extent and therefore lend themselves to being developed.

This approach can take the pressure off building on high grade agricultural land. However, such reasonably developable sites within the Green Belt are few.

Lack of detailed working with West Lancs
We understand that West Lancs Borough Council has some concerns about Option 2 particularly with regard to the reserved sites in Lydiate which if developed will leave too narrow a Green Belt with Aughton. We share this concern.

In general we have concerns about the seemingly lack of detailed joint Local Plan development with West Lancs Borough Council. This is evidenced by West Lancs’ comments about the Lydiate reserve sites and the lack of detail in either the Sefton or indeed West Lancs plans to address transportation issues (both rail and road) to the east of Southport.

The fact that the Local Plan process seems not to be developing a common detailed agenda to address traffic congestion between Southport and Ormskirk and the improvement of rail services to and from Southport along the Wigan Southport railway line is regrettable. The reconnection of the Wigan – Southport and Ormskirk – Preston railway lines at Burscough (via the Burscough Curves) is also surprising by its omission from the draft.

Negative impact developments in retail units
Prevention of retail ghettoisation – The Local Plan should aim to restrict the spread of betting shops (particularly given the prevalence of fixed odds betting terminals) and pay day loan shops.

Environmental considerations
Whilst raising issues such as global warming, climate change and sustainable development the plan is far from being ambitious in this crucial area of environmental sustainability. Sefton’s Local Plan and indeed those of our neighbouring Councils need to focus on energy conservation and the highest possible energy-saving/low carbon targets for all new developments. District heating is being embraced in one area of Kew in Southport but this can only be the start. Biomass boilers on a communal basis are another way forward that must be grasped.

Whilst doing this the Council should be seeking effective ways to improve, as far as possible, the Borough’s current stock of commercial and domestic buildings with regard to energy usage.

Should we not also be considering the aims of Merseyside Fire & Rescue Authority by pushing hard the policy of encouraging the installation of sprinkler systems in all new commercial property builds in the Borough and retrofitting into older properties?

Shale Gas extraction has to be a major issue for Sefton as exploration work is already happening in neighbouring West Lancashire and the license under which that is taking place also covers parts of our Borough. It is almost certain that the UK will need to exploit this source of fuel within the next few years yet the Local Plan is all but silent on the matter. As the plan is meant to cover the next 15 to 20 years for it to virtually ignore this issue is far from being a sound planning process.

Flooding – the two large greenbelt sites proposed for building in the north of Southport and one of the ‘reserved’ sites in Lydiate are prone to flooding and they add to concerns that the draft plan does not give enough emphasis to flood prevention.

We fear that planning for future school requirements is not a robust part of the Local Plan and that this needs to be addressed especially if the Council presses ahead with major housing developments. A sit and wait to see what develops approach will be irresponsible where significant developments are to take place especially when half of the Borough is already very close to experiencing stresses with regard to primary school places.

It also has to be held in mind that schools in Sefton are popular for parents from West Lancs, Knowsley and Liverpool to send their children to, so housing developments in those neighbouring council areas will have an impact on the demand for places within the Borough.

NHS Pressure
We have concerns about the impact of major housing developments in the Borough (and indeed in surrounding council areas) as they will have an impact on the capacity of our local NHS facilities and hospitals. The Local Plan needs to addresses the problems that will occur with extra pressure on hospitals, GP surgeries and NHS dentists. These health aspects have to be a major part of all future major planning applications as accessibility to and the capacity of NHS facilities to cope are big issues

The challenges of Liverpool’s greatly declined population
Demand for housing in Sefton and indeed in other Boroughs surrounding Liverpool has been ratcheted up by the city’s ever declining population over many generations since the Second World War. Whilst Liverpool has stemmed that loss it needs to rebuild its lost population and use up brownfield sites across the city for housing. The longer it takes to address this issue the greater the pressure will be on Sefton to sanction the building of houses on its high grade agricultural land. This is a sub-regional matter that urgently needs to be addressed.

Questionable public consultation process
Before the 12 weeks public consultation was embarked upon (July to September 2013) we and indeed independent environmental campaigners from across the Borough raised such concerns but they were not taken on board. We suggested that the planned method of public consultation was inappropriate and would not engage people fully. What concerned us was the need for members of the public to book an appointment to enable them to express their views on the draft Local Plan face to face. We said this was an unreasonable barrier to the consultation process and that it would effectively hold residents at arms length instead of welcoming them into it. We still hold to that view and are concerned that a true picture of the concerns of residents across the Borough may well not have been obtained.

A full copy of our September’ 13 submission is available to read on our Sefton Focus web site at:-


The additional sites

General Principles

Unsurprisingly, we are opposed to development on the vast majority of the addition sites as indeed we remain opposed to the development of many of the sites that the Council, under its Labour leadership, has already indicated that it wishes to see developed.

Our principles and approach have not changed in that we oppose Green Belt development in all but very specific circumstances such as those mentioned in our original submission. This is what we said in September 2013 on that matter:-

The Power House in Formby, land east of Southport at Kew, the Pontins site in Ainsdale and the presently vacant Ashworth South site in Maghull are examples of sites where a reasonable compromise can be made. The Power House, Pontins and Ashworth South are clear examples of sites which have previously been built upon to some extent and therefore lend themselves to being developed.

Couple with that our overriding concern that virtually all the undeveloped land in the Borough is high grade agricultural land that should be protected from development so that it can be used to grow food for future generations.

These principles are what frame our approach to the Local Plan process as a whole and therefore the vast majority of the ‘additional sites’ fall foul of our environmental sustainability test.

To illustrate our concerns we have conducted a review of the proposals for the East Parishes part of the Borough because it sadly details our concerns only too well. Whilst there are of course ‘additional sites’ across Sefton that land owners want to concrete over this part of the Borough is clearly being targeted by developers. Should they get their way the impact on the East Parishes communities could be catastrophic.

Sites in and around the East Parishes communities – Maghull, Aintree Village, Lydiate & Melling.

There are some truly vast sites here that developers wish to see built upon and a real danger that communities will merge into one another and lose identity if the proposals are taken forward.

* Site AS17 – The Peel Holdings proposals for a logistics park to the east of the M57 and adjacent to Switch Island and Brewery Lane in Melling are a huge concern to us. The land is presently being farmed because it is high grade agricultural land and there are, in our view, no sound reasons to agree to this development. The landscape of rural Melling would be lost forever as acre upon acre of high grade agricultural land would be lost to an industrial development. The traffic implications of this upon rural Melling would be huge indeed.

* Sites AS12/AS14 – These two huge sites to the west and east of Lydiate/Maghull fall within a similar category to AS17 in that they are both high grade agricultural land that is presently being farmed. To turn them over to housing is unthinkable in environmental sustainability terms. AS14 is right next to SR4.48 (Tyson’s Triangle) which Sefton Council has already designated as a ‘reserve’ site for development in its own draft Local Plan. Bearing in mind that a further and much larger ‘reserve’ site (SR4.47) is the other side of SR4.48 this would have the effect of vastly increasing the size of Lydiate’s population. Just developing the two reserve sites will increase Lydiate’s size by 35%! What’s more AS14 will develop Lydiate right up to the West Lancashire (Aughton) boundary and we are aware that West Lancs Council already have concerns about the two ‘reserve’ sites for this very reason. Taking the 3 sites together Lydiate would be subject to an urban extension of considerable proportions.

* Site AS15 – We urge great caution in approaching this site for development. It is prone to flooding as the flood events of September 2012 demonstrated with many homes in Fouracres, Maghull being under water. These flooded properties are adjacent to this site and they risk being flooded again if Dovers Brook ‘overtops’ due to it being unable to run into an at capacity River Alt. Our understanding is that this site is rich in wildlife and there have been previous proposals to turn it into a nature reserve, which seems a far more sensible use for the land. We oppose development here.

* Sites AS18, AS19, AS21 and AS22 – Should these sites be considered for development it will mean that Aintree Village will see a vast increase in its size and it will be developed right up to the M57 Motorway. Bearing in mind that AS17 will potentially develop land on the other side of the same Motorway this will have the effect of considerable urban sprawl with Aintree Village losing the semi-rural surroundings that it presently benefits from.

* Site AS23 – This will, if it is developed for housing, have the effect of joining Aintree Village to Liverpool as it is very close to the Sefton/Liverpool boundary. This will lead to a position whereby presently separate communities merge into each other and as a consequence lose identity. This site needs to retain its open aspect.

Site AS24 – This is split into two sites that seemingly share the same reference number. The smaller (westerly site) has mostly been developed in previous times so is not problematic in our view. Indeed, it shares a similar status to the Ashworth South site SR4.26) in our opinion. The larger (easterly) site has not been subject to previous development and therefore fails our environmental sustainability test; it should not be released for development.

Turning to Southport, it has just a couple ‘additional sites’ put forward by developers and land owners for inclusion as development land in the Local Plan, but both sites illustrate and reinforce our environment first approach to the Local Plan process:-

Site AS01
– This Meols site is an extension of site SR4.02. We objected to the development of SR4.02 in the last round of consultation. AS01 will simply develop a much larger area which is presently Green Belt land. Our clear view is that neither of these adjacent sites should be developed for the total of around 420 houses that are proposed because there is an obvious and altogether acceptable alternative. That alternative site is the old Philips factory site.

Site AS02 – This Birkdale site, right next to the Liverpool – Southport railway line, is another one where the environmental considerations are of great significance and a recent bio-diversity report on it makes compelling reading. It may not be, in this case, high grade agricultural land but the bio-diversity factors brought out by the report mean that we strongly oppose any development on it.


We have not commented on every ‘additional site’ in the Borough but have used specific examples to illustrate our concerns and principles.

Translating the sites to a map of the East Parishes communities quickly leads you to the conclusion that semi-rural nature of these separate villages and the Town of Maghull will all but be lost by the Council’s draft proposals. To add in the majority of the ‘additional sites’ would simply stick the final lid in the coffin of these separate, proud and semi-rural communities.

We do appreciate that some additional housing (particularly social housing and particularly so in the north of the Borough) will be required in the coming years but a more innovative approach is required than simply looking for the nearest green field and stamping it for concreting over.

We urge the Council to rethink its approach to development land and the need for housing across the Borough along the lines of our submission of September 2013.

Cllr. Iain Brodie Browne
Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group
Sefton MBC

Sums up what Melling residents think about Green Belt grab

They say a picture says a thousand words so no screed from me just a photo of what Melling residents think about the potential loss of their precious Green Belt and high grade agricultural land:-


Click on this photo to enlarge it


The photo above is amongst my Flickr shots at:-

Campaign to identify brownfield sites launched

The Campaign to Protect Rural England [CPRE] has launched an initiative to identify thousands of derelict sites suitable for new homes in a bid to help solve Britain’s housing crisis without building on the countryside. The campaign, called Waste of Space, is hoping to tap the local knowledge of people across the country about disused buildings and former industrial sites. The CPRE is asking people to nominate sites by tweeting or emailing photographs, which it will compile and publish in a national database. The information will be used to put pressure on the government to increase the incentives for developers to target brownfield sites instead of the countryside.

Frankly this is a great initiative and I say that despite having reservations about the Sefton Branch of CPRE which I feel has not been robust enough locally in defending Green Belt and high grade agricultural land from potential development. In my view, as previously expressed on this site, they are too easily giving in to Green Belt loss so their national organisation launching this initiative is very welcome indeed.

With thanks to the LGiU for the lead to this article.