Southport MP Damien Moore has today signed an online petition objecting to the development by Wainhomes off Bankfield Lane in Churchtown.

Wainhomes North West has applied for full planning permission to build 121 homes during the first stage of development, in addition to outline permission to build a further 200 homes during the second phase.

This outline planning permission will give approval for a development in principle, but requires a further application with more detail on areas such as design, vehicle access and drainage, before full permission is granted.

If approved, the development will see the construction of a mixture of one to five bedroom properties in a variety of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses along with a single block of flats, whilst each of the homes developed in the first phase would have a private garden, parking, and an area of communal garden space provided to the front of the proposed flats.

Commenting on the development, Damien said:

“It is my understanding that the prospect of future flooding remains prevalent and that it is the responsibility of Sefton Council to invest to address this issue. As the latter has not been forthcoming, I am convinced that this remains a compelling and serious argument to deny planning permission.”

“This application follows only weeks after permission was granted for another application for up to 147 houses on the nearby site of the former Philips factory at Balmoral Drive. A site that was previously classified as Green Belt, but was earmarked for housing in the Labour-led Sefton local plan.”

“In addition, the three storey style apartments proposed are not in-keeping with the appearance of the local area nor the Churchtown Conservation area, as there are no existing three storey buildings in the vicinity. I also understand that local education providers, i.e., local schools, are at maximum capacity and cannot accommodate any additional pupils.”

In addition to signing the online petition, the town’s MP has also written to residents in Churchtown outlining his decision and offered his support in the months ahead.

Residents have until January 26 to register their opinions with Sefton Council.

This is great news. I do hope Sefton council listen and stop this madness. As the flooding in this area has not been addressed there will be a serious case to answer in the future if it does. Churchtown is a village and should be protected. It cannot cope with the inevitable traffic increase.

great news more houses!=more work for local people

Originally Posted by Seashells&sand

Churchtown is a village and should be protected. It cannot cope with the inevitable traffic increase.

I wouldn't actually class that particular area as Churchtown!

It is far closer to Crossens than Churchtown!

They could always do what they are doing in Kew, that is to raise the ground level by about 2 metres.
To hell with the consequences and other properties.

Originally Posted by pedoja

I wouldn't actually class that particular area as Churchtown!

It is far closer to Crossens than Churchtown!

Bankfield lane is Churchtown (Rufford rd is Crossens) Bankfield lane is the rd that leads to a beautiful village that has a small rd running through it, the other nearby rd is also small and congested. The biggest effect will be on Churchtown. Irrelevant in a way which its closer to as the flood affected areas are Verulam, Merlewood, Preston New rd and Balmoral. The postal address for these is Churchtown.

Originally Posted by condemnation

great news more houses!=more work for local people

more houses/ more people = exacerbating existing flooding/increased road congestion

The development will be in Crossens! Stop pretending it is Churchtown, clue, Crossens Railway Station was there!

Flooding and traffic congestion aside, People moving in to the area also need to be registered with a GP, children have to attend school etc, How does the town cope with the lack of resources in place ?

Originally Posted by Steve_728

The development will be in Crossens! Stop pretending it is Churchtown, clue, Crossens Railway Station was there!

How is this relevant? The border is at the bridge, but Bankfield IS Churchtown and the main access into Southport will go through CHURCHTOWN. The only interest that existing residents in both Crossens and Churchtown have, whose live will be affected is with regards to flooding, access and the strain on local facilities. The roads I mentioned before flood badly, Verulam is like a river, so whatever anyone says this has to be addressed. Also, drive through Churchtown at peak times, see the congestion and then imagine what it will be like with an increased population.

Originally Posted by roving-eye

“In addition, the three storey style apartments proposed are not in-keeping with the appearance of the local area nor the Churchtown Conservation area, as there are no existing three storey buildings in the vicinity.

Better find other reasons to object, this will not be sufficient by itself!

When I and all the neighbours objected to a three storey modern 6 bedroom house being build by "garden grabbing" (and building with a meter of the existing houses) in a street of 1920s houses the planning committee turned down our objection.

Originally Posted by r4dent

Better find other reasons to object, this will not be sufficient by itself!

When I and all the neighbours objected to a three storey modern 6 bedroom house being build by "garden grabbing" (and building with a meter of the existing houses) in a street of 1920s houses the planning committee turned down our objection.

Yes Sefton council couldn't care less about the aesthetics. However if they don't fix the flooding that they have acknowledged exists, believe me they wI'll be held accountable.

Originally Posted by Seashells&sand

How is this relevant? The border is at the bridge, but Bankfield IS Churchtown and the main access into Southport will go through CHURCHTOWN. The only interest that existing residents in both Crossens and Churchtown have, whose live will be affected is with regards to flooding, access and the strain on local facilities. The roads I mentioned before flood badly, Verulam is like a river, so whatever anyone says this has to be addressed. Also, drive through Churchtown at peak times, see the congestion and then imagine what it will be like with an increased population.

The Bridge was Crossens Railway Station.

It's only Churchtown when trying to sell the houses, when buying they're in Crossens.

This isn't about flooding, schools or congestion. It's about NIMBY pure & simple.

We need more housing and this plan seems ideal - a mix of brownfield and greenbelt sites being used. All the objections can be addressed by simple engineering and building projects.
Schools are at capacity all over Southport yet sites at Kew, the old infirmary, Liverpool Road by St Thomas Moores and Kensington Road are all either ongoing, completed or near completion and, as far as I'm aware, the world's still turning. One site is immediately adjacent to this proposal and I don't recall a big hoo ha being raised over that.

My suspicion here is someone has whispered the words affordable housing or worse still for the NIMBY - social housing - AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGH

Originally Posted by Coastal99

The Bridge was Crossens Railway Station.

It's only Churchtown when trying to sell the houses, when buying they're in Crossens.

This isn't about flooding, schools or congestion. It's about NIMBY pure & simple.

Oh my god I have never known such bigotry! It is Churchtown on a postal address and this area is under north Meols for voting. When these roads flood like rivers we have a right to be concerned!!! When its already difficult to get through the congestion in Churchtown at peak times we have a right to say we're not happy it will get worse. I can't help but think that some of these comments are a result that a conservative MP signed the petition because there is certainly no empathy coming your way for ordinary people whose lives may be affected negatively.