Live: Padel, the ‘grey belt’ and a HMO thousands ‘don’t want’
The Monitor reports live from Sefton Council’s planning committee
Also, plans for big changes for a Birkdale secondary school and a major development in Formby
The Monitor is reporting live from Bootle Town Hall tonight as the borough’s planning committee meets from 6.30pm to decide whether to approve or reject a range of proposals, including a nine-person HMO in Litherland and plans to convert a tennis court into two padel courts in Crosby.
There are also some much larger schemes on the table this evening, including a major development in Formby involving two supermarkets and a medical centre, as well as the redevelopment of Greenbank High School in Birkdale.
One application, for three new homes at Kenyons Lane in Lydiate, involves land which remains part of the Green Belt but which officers say now falls within the newer, and somewhat controversial, national definition of ‘grey belt’. A previous application for four homes on the site was refused in 2018 and later dismissed at appeal.
While the Litherland HMO may seem the smaller of the developments up for discussion tonight, it is potentially the most controversial. More than 2,000 people have signed a petition against the conversion, with 132 letters of objection by residents, raising concerns including parking, noise, pressure on services and the impact of HMOs on the character of the area.
It’s a development we’ve heard a lot about in recent months, with people living locally getting in touch to share their concerns with the Monitor. A previous application was refused by officers earlier this year, but after amendments to the scheme, council planning officers are now recommending approval. The previous refusal related to a basement bedroom without ‘reasonable outlook’ and concerns about street parking.
The final decision tonight rests with the committee. As with all the developments to be decided this evening, if permission is refused, the applicant would have the option of appealing to the Planning Inspectorate, which is the government agency that deals with planning appeals.
Speaking of which, the committee tonight will also hear about the most recent tranche of planning appeals heard by the inspectorate. While many of these were dismissed, meaning the council’s decision to refuse was upheld, some were later allowed on appeal - including two HMOs, one on Bedford Road in Bootle and another on South Road in Waterloo.
There are also 24 new appeals which haven’t been decided yet, including one proposing to build four bungalows at a former pig farm in Lydiate and three about turning residential homes into children’s homes. There are also a number of tree-related applications and several about putting up LCD display screens for advertising, amongst others - all of which will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate.
We’ll be following the meeting from the assembly hall of the town hall and providing live updates from 6.30pm below. Please do share this page if you think others might be interested in the decisions being made, and get in touch if any of the applications affect you.
The latest updates will appear at the top automatically. Scroll to the bottom to follow the meeting from the beginning.
First time visiting the Mersey Monitor? Welcome! We’re an independent public interest news site covering Merseyside on a not-for-profit basis. Everything we publish is free to read, with no paywalls, and we’re funded by reader donations. You can sign up to receive our emails (they’re completely free) at the bottom of this page.
8.24pm - Planning appeals noted, visit schedule noted, meeting over.
20.24pm - The chair has an answer ‘closer currently than being proposed’. Cllr Kelly moves approval, subject to section 106 agreement, that is seconded, a vote is being taken, everyone is in favour. The application has been approved.
8.22pm - Mr Mckenzie said he would ‘hazard a guess’ but this would be confirmed. He said they would get the measurements. Cllr Kelly asked where the busses are parking now. There is more consultation. One officer has an answer - about 13m to the boundary of the site and 35m to the property. The officer was asked where they currently parked now. Cllr Kelly said ‘where they are now’. There are quiet murmurs.
8.20pm - There’s some consulting of documents going on, laptops are being looked at, quiet discussions are taking place amongst the officers. ‘We’re just getting the answer for you councillors’ said the chair. Cllr Braham appeared to be growing slightly impatient ‘do we have an answer or not?’ ‘Hold on’ came the response.
8.19pm - Cllr Braham asks another question about the extension of the car park and intended spaces for coaches. ‘How close are they to the rear of those properties’ at the back on Hastings Road, he asked.
8.16pm - Cllr Braham speaks about remembering playing among the foundations when the school was first built. He moves swiftly on to asking about the relocation of a ‘well used’ zebra crossing. The officer said ‘it’s not moving very far’ and is moving in the direction most pupils head.
8.12pm - the plan will involve a bit of rejigging of the sports facilities, but officers have concluded it is ‘equivalent or better’.
8.11pm - The officer is talking councillors through the plans for the proposed’ L-shaped’ site. The school will incorporate large glazed panels.
The plan is to carry out work in phases, allowing the school to remain open while construction is going ahead. A temporary two-storey teaching block is proposed with pupils expected to finally move into the new building in autumn 2028. The remaining work is planned to completed in autumn 2029. The redevelopment isn’t expected to increase the pupil capacity of the school.
The final major application tonight is for the redevelopment of Greenbank High School. The existing school buildings, dating mostly from the 1960s and 1970s, would be demolished and replaced with a new school building and sports facilities. The scheme is part of a government School Rebuilding Programme. BAM Construction will delivering the project if it gets approved tonight.
If you’re still with us we’re on to Greenbank High School in Birkdale.
8.08pm - Chief Planning Officer Derek Mackenzie is speaking now - ‘our local plan is out of date and so these speculative schemes will come forward and we have to assess them on the rules.’ He spoke of the importance of moving forward with the Local Plan’ so we can now close the door on this type of speculative scheme’. It was moved to approve, almost but not quite unanimous as Cllr Dodd voted against. The plan was approved.
8.07pm - There are no speakers so over to councillor questions and Cllr Doolin speaks about ‘mission creep.’ ‘Here we are’ he said ‘discussing the grey belt’. He asked about cumulative effects of planning of this type. An officer has replied to say that all can be done around cumulative impact is to assess developments as they come forward. ‘Obviously cumulative impact will be considered at a later stage when we look at the Local Plan’.
8.05pm - There is a low risk of flooding at the site, the officer added, although there is an area of the site that has a slightly higher risk of flooding, with a previous flooding incident linked to a culvert and has led officers to add a condition about assessing flooding risks. The officer concluded the development would make a ‘modest contribution’ to the borough’s housing supply and meets planning policies and so is recommended for approval.
8.04pm - The officer is now going through the housing design itself - they’re of a staggered layout and ‘meet space standards’ for living conditions required.
8.03pm - The officer said there is evidence of unmet need as council is unable to develop its five year housing supply, which impacts on its assessment of the grey belt land.
8.01pm - We’ve got ahead of the officer here, who is now explaining what grey belt land is considered to be - ‘Grey belt’ is a newish category in planning and refers to land still officially within the Green Belt, but which was either previously developed or is considered a lower quality of land. The designation can make it easier for development to be justified than it would have been under the traditional Green Belt rules.
8pm - The officer is talking about the previous application now, which was rejected because it was deemed inappropriate development of the green belt.
7.59pm - The officer is now going through the application for the committee. He mentions it being ‘on the edge of the Green Belt’.
The land remains within the Green Belt, but officers are saying it now meets the definition of ‘grey belt’ land, which means officers have changed their assessment and are recommending permission should be granted.
This application proposes three detached, two-storey homes with parking and gardens on land at Kenyons Lane. An earlier proposal for four houses on the site was refused in 2018 and later dismissed after an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
More people are leaving now - next up is land at Kenyons Lane.
7.57pm - Cllr Burns moves for recommendation to approve with additional conditions, this was seconded, a vote was taken and there was unanimous approval.
7.54pm - Cllr Key asked to include that condition and the officer said that could be added. Cllr Burns asked about conditions around the impact of traffic and if that could be assessed. ‘Do you mean a verification of traffic’ asks the officer. Another officer responds to say the intensification wouldn’t be ‘considered that great’.
7.54pm - Cllr Bennett asked if a condition around noise could be taken on board. ‘Can we have a condition around the acoustics… is there anything further that can be done?’ The officer responded - ‘we have had situations in the past particularly when there is no structure’ including a condition that involves ‘an element of verification’ to assess whether its ‘reflective of true life conditions once it’s operating’ which could potentially be utilised.
7.51pm - She explained 7am - 11pm are classed as the non noise sensitive part of the day and the hours proposed for the courts fall within them.
7.51pm - Cllr Page asked about the operating hours. He asked whether restricting those hours could happen if it had greater impact than anticipated. The officer said there is scope to change the hours.
7.49pm - Cllr Doolin asked about safeguards if noise exceeds predictions. The officer said officers were satisfied the baseline data was reflective of existing noise conditions. She said that it is already a recreational site and that was taken into account. The officer explained the intial pushback from environmental health was ‘because we needed to satisfy ourselves the structure did what it was intended to do.’ She added that the consultant involved was experienced and suitably qualified.
7.48pm - We’re over to member questions now and one from Cllr Doolin. ‘Do these structures exist elsewhere and do they do the job that they’re meant to do?’. A environmental health officer said it was rare to find one with such substantial enclosure as detailed and there are others in the borough that don’t have any structure at all, or as substantial as this one proposed.
7.46pm - Cllr Howard now speaks about parking concerns and said the application does increase spaces but there is no assessment of projected occupation of those spaces and therefore no assessment of the impact on neighbouring streets.
7.45pm - Cllr Howard is speaking about the popularity of padel and the impact this may have on additional membership. She said this isn’t addressed in the planning report, adding this fed into concerns around traffic, which would be ‘likely to increase the frequency of traffic conflicts’ and an increase in dangerous incidents.
7.44pm - ‘Uncertainty about the acoustics remain’ Cllr Howard said and there are no conditions to monitor the impact.
7.43pm - Cllr Howard spoke of the structure not being fully enclosed and concerns over the open sides being a ‘noise bath’.
7.43pm - Cllr Howard is now getting up to voice her objections. She said she’s not against padel but is concerned about elements of the application.
7.42pm - He concluded by saying this was a ‘carefully considered’ proposal that includes mitigations to protect the neighbouring amenity.
7.41pm - He added that this wasn’t an unmanned court and there would be arrangements to mitigate some of the concerns around access, behaviour and so forth.
7.40pm - The representative said in terms of the aesthetic, it was designed to be ‘unobtrusive’.
7.39pm - ‘This is not an application for an unmanaged unenclosed padel court’ he said. He spoke of the solid roof structure and acoustic absorbing lining.
7.38pm - The purpose of the application is to ‘invest in the future’ of the club, the representative said. Responding to resident concerns, he said that noise mitigation can be raised through planning conditions.
7.37pm - The representative from Campion is speaking of two rounds of consultation. ‘We’ve had a lot of feedback from the neighbours and we sympathise with their concerns’.
7.36pm - Representatives for the applicants are speaking up next.
7.35pm - He spoke of the ‘significant effect’ the noise could have on mental wellbeing. ‘Do not set a precedent for building padel courts so close to homes’ he concluded before being stopped as time was up. There was applause from the gallery.
7.32pm - The objector said the baseline level was ‘unreliable’ and questions relying on a noise consultant for assessment of baseline noise levels. He speaks of his concerns around the noise levels associated with padel. He said the noise, from 12 hours a day, would impact on his ‘enjoyment of our home’.
7.32pm An objector is now coming up to speak and launches in to concerns around noises levels. He questioned the average baseline noise level in the applicant report. The objector said he asked AI for advice about how to calculate noise levels and said it responded ‘ 30 - 90 days is acceptable’ for statistical validity.
7.28pm - ‘The proposal retains and enhances sporting and recreational facilities’ Mr Mackie concluded, recommending the proposal for approval.
7.27pm - Mr Mackie said it would provide a new sports provision in Crosby which has no padel courts, so it will ‘meet an identified local need’.
7.26pm - Officer Neil Mackie talks about the application attracting ‘significant public interest’ with concerns linked to noise, amenity and impact on local area.
7.25pm - The officer is talking the committee through the application.
Neighbours have raised concerns about noise, while amendments to the scheme include three additional parking spaces and changes intended to improve pedestrian access. Officers are recommending approval.
Campion Lawn Tennis Club wants to convert one of its existing tennis courts into two covered padel courts. The plans include constructing an overhead canopy and entrance area, which would contain lockers and vending machines.
The next item is Campian Lawn Tennis Club.
7.21pm - There is some disagreement, with people calling out from the public gallery that there were two motions. ‘The only motion before committee was refusal’ officer Neil Kennard clarified. He also confirmed the vote was 11 to 2 in favour of refusal after a member of the public called out. It is an unusual move for officers to be responding to calls out from the public gallery, which led to the clarifications.
7.19pm - The officer has sought more clarification on the councillor’s concerns. ‘We’ve got two matters of concern, one is the sustainability of the site and there is a lot of retail there… and concerns around the amount of retail’. Cllr Page said ‘thank you for summarising my points’. There is now a vote on the motion to reject. Most councillors voted in favour of rejecting and two voted against.
7.15pm - Cllr Page is speaking of his concerns over the impact of the development on Formby town centre and spoke of concerns over the highways issue. An officer asked the councillor for clarification from a highways perspective - does it relate to highway safety or public transport? Cllr Page said that there were concerns over only having one access point.
7.14pm - The officer said the proposal complies with the aims and objectives of the local and neighbourhood plans and should be granted consent.
7.13pm - The officer is talking about the impact on biodiversity and protected species now and saying there is no measurable adverse impact.
7.12pm - There have been some objections to the application, although the council is recommending for approval, stating it will not cause significant harm in relation to some issues raised, such as around highways, flooding and drainage.
7.11pm - An officer is talking the committee through the application now.
The proposal has prompted concerns about traffic, flooding, ecology and the effect on Formby village centre. The council’s retail consultants estimate the scheme could reduce total retail turnover in Formby centre by nearly 16%. That’s mainly because the M&S is expected to relocate from the Cloisters.
The application is partly for full planning permission and partly outline permission. It includes two supermarkets, identified in the committee report as Lidl and an M&S Foodhall, a drive-thru, a new junction from the bypass and associated roads and infrastructure. Later phases would include at least 7.58 hectares of employment land, another drive-thru and a community medical centre.
We’ve moved on to the next item now - which is an application for a large development in Formby. The 12.6-hectare site sits north of Formby Industrial Estate beside the A565 Formby Bypass and is allocated for employment development in Sefton’s Local Plan.
7.06pm - The meeting room is beginning to empty now ahead of the next item of the agenda.
7.04pm - Cllr Kelly said he recommended refusal in relation to noise and impact on character of the area. This is seconded. Unanimous vote in favour of rejecting the application, led to applause.
7.03pm - One councillor asked how could it be that nine people or even 18 versus a five bed family would not be overconcentration. Cllr Kelly moved for refusal and this is seconded. Someone shouted out from the audience.
7.02pm - Cllr Doolin asked how the nine person limit would be actually monitored? The officer said it would be conditional on the planning and if it was in breach the applicant would be liable to enforcement action.
7pm - Cllr Neil Doolin is asking questions now. ‘Is the council satisfied that the 100m HMO test remains the most appropraite measurement of concentration?’. Officer replies, mentioning the supplementary planning guidance which sets out the rules on this. ‘Yes it is a rough measure of how we do it but one we’ve introduced to try to address this issue of overconcentration.’
6.59pm - Cllr Thompson is asking another question about an informative - this is where something isn’t down as a condition. The officer explains ‘it’s to draw the attention of the applicant’ to building regulations and to protect the internal arrangement of the property.
6.58pm - An officer is responding, he said on the actual parking provision and parking spaces, HMOs don’t often have high car ownership.
6.57pm On to councillor questions to officers. Cllr Thompson asks about parking issues. ‘It does say a comprehensive reassessment has been undertaken by the highways team but we don’t actually know what that is’
Cllr Moncur’s time is now up.
6.56pm - Cllr Moncur now speaks of highways and the statement there would be no impact on on-street parking. ‘I would certainly think that is not going to be the case, there would be an increase in on street parking’
6.55pm - Cllr Moncur is now referring to the impact on existing neighbours. ‘These are matters of judgement, officers have taken a view on them. I would suggest the committee should consider and take a different view’. That is the ‘very significant difference’ between a large family home and HMO in terms of comings and goings and impact on neighbouring properties. ‘This isn’t a family group occupying a dwelling, this is nine individual with nine sets of lifestyles’.
6.54pm - Cllr Moncur said he had to acknowledge the level of local opposition to this. He spoke of numerous conversations with local residents, including hundreds of emails and phone calls. ‘It is such an issue of concern in the local area’ he added.
6.52pm - We hadn’t missed Cllr Moncur speaking, he’s up next. He said he’s representing the views of many residents of Ford Wards. ‘The comments I would make are all planning related.’ He spoke of the speculation mentioned by the applicant’s representative which was not in the report tonight. He added ‘they weren’t’ included in what the first speaker said’ either and said all parties should stick to planning issues.
6.51pm - The representative finishes by calling on the committee to support the recommendation to approve. Some people in the gallery started to speak out, leading the chair to ask them to remain quiet.
* Retrospective note to live updates - the applicant’s representative also stated there was no history on behalf of the applicant or intention to engage in a contract with government or agency bodies in relation to this property. (apologies, has missed including this point at the time due to the challenges of typing semi-crouched at a table in a rather crowded assembly room, but given some of the online speculation around this have retrospectively included for clarity.)
6.50pm - The representative said there have been no objections from highways etc nor are there any concerns around antisocial behaviour or reason to expect them to arise. He said there had been speculation about private business and assumptions about how the property would be occupied which is not to be under consideration. ‘There are no material factors under which planning permission should be witheld.’
6.47pm - The representative has spoken about the article 4 direction. He said there are 56 properties within the radius and only three are HMOs and therefore is an acceptable level of intensity. He said the impact on neighbours had been assessed and it had been concluded ‘no significant harm’ to neighbouring conditions.
6.45pm - The representative said it’s important the members have the correct factual information. He said assumptions of those occupying HMOs including issues around ethnicity should not be considered. He appears to be referring to some speculation on social media about the purpose of the HMO at this point.
6.44pm - He has claimed there has been ‘misinformation and speculation’ about the purpose of the accommodation. He said the applicant is a local business who has properties across the city region.
6.44pm - The chair said the applicant has ten minutes for right of reply. We earlier missed Cllr Moncur speaking thanks to the traffic. Speaking on behalf of the application, a representative spoke of the strength of feeling the application has attracted.
‘We’re asking you to properly consider the consequences of intensification of use’ he added, saying he wasn’t speculating on who may live at the property. The chair told Mr Rogers his time was up. There followed a large round of applause.
Mr Rogers is speaking of the management of the property and issues that have already occurred. ‘As a committee do you feel confident in the management of this property?’ He asked.
Mr Rogers also questioned the HMO concentration. He said there was a figure of 5.4% of concentration, saying this was relied upon to conclude no over concentration. He questioned the assessment undertaken to establish HMO records are complete.
Mr Rogers now moves on to the intensity of occupation. He said that while the council report said ‘comings and goings are likely to be dispersed throughout the day’ and questioned what assessment led to that.
Mr Rogers said the road was very narrow, ‘imagine nine vehicles fighting for space’. He added it would be ‘chaos’ and questioned the safety.
The assembly room is full to the rafters tonight. Paul Rogers spoke of the issue of parking and highway safety. He said the previous application was partly refused because of impact of parking, questioning what has now changed for four vehicles to be determined acceptable.
Arrived a little late, don’t you just love traffic in Liverpool, but just in time for Paul Rogers to address the committee about Litherland Park. He spoke of the amount of people who signed the petition. ‘It doesn’t automatically mean an application should be refused’ but spoke of professional and political responsibility to consider community concerns.
First time visiting the Mersey Monitor? Welcome! We’re an independent public interest news site covering Merseyside on a not-for-profit basis. Everything we publish is free to read, with no paywalls, and we’re funded by reader donations. You can sign up to receive our emails (they’re completely free) at the bottom of this page.
You can view details of all the planning applications ahead of the meeting here: https://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=12194&Ver=4
