Print your name and address>>>
Government Office for the North West
City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza
MANCHESTER M1 4BE
Re: Liverpool City Council Planning Application No. 060/3442, Former Garden Festival Site.
I wish to request a line of enquiry with regard to the outline and full planning permission of Liverpool's Garden Festival Site (planning application 060/3442) which was given approval by Liverpool Council on 21st May 2007.
This application has aroused major levels of concern and controversy in the Liverpool city region and way beyond. The site also borders and provides a beautiful wooded backdrop to Otterspool Promenade – a site used for walking, cycling, picnicking & fishing by thousands of people per week. It is on the National Cycle path network. The site borders an SSSI & RAMSAR site and in itself is of Site of Nature Conservation Value (Lancashire Wildlife Trust assessment). Any decisions made about this site need to be good long term sustainable ones that can build upon the existing strengths of this site so important for the Merseyside Regional Coastal Park. The above decision was poorly made and inadequately consulted upon. The developers have not been able to demonstrate widespread support for their proposals in the local community as required by PPG17, Para. 10. It clashes with National and Regional Guidance on a whole range of issues.
It cannot possibly produce a mixed, sustainable community as required by PPS3. Many of these flats will undoubtedly be left vacant conflicting with RPG13. This development will also conflict with policies for housing regeneration in the nearby Housing Renewal Area Zones of Opportunity allocated for new housing developments.
The 1,374 predominantly 1 & 2 bedroom flatted development patently represents over-development of land designated in the Council’s UDP as ‘Green Wedge’ and Open Space.
This is also a key area of Undeveloped Coastline as identified in the UDP and, according to PPG20, Para 2.9, it should not be squandered in a housing development which clearly does not require a coastal location. This development will encroach on the Promenade in ways presumed against in PPG17 Para. 17 (ii). including ‘overlooking’ it. This area has sufficient category (i) open spaces but is insufficient in category (ii) as defined in PPG17. Rather than offering a sub-standard park the immediate and the wider community require a natural green space, a factor given importance in policies PPS1, Para 27(ix); PPG17, Para.11 (iii); PPG17 Companion Guide Annex A, A5 and PPS9, Para 15 & 16.
This development is proposed on land known to be heavily contaminated. The Environmental Impact Assessment does not adequately address this or the resultant increased noise and air pollution from resultant increases in traffic. If outline planning permission is granted and then the land proves too contaminated to build upon the developers could sue the council, an unacceptable risk for council taxpayers to take (PPS23, Annex 2, Para. 2.55).
The transport infrastructure in the area around this site is inadequate and the developers have failed to commit themselves to a sustainable, meaningful travel plan (PPG13, Para 90 and 91) or limiting car parking spaces (PPG13, Para. 49).
I have read and understood the above.