Developers await approval for 475 St Helens residences

No one wants this development, it’s building on green land which is heartbreaking

You are not thinking properly this VILLAGE can not support that many new people not enough doctors schools or parking but worst of all you are building on agricultural land.

Your building on agricultural land which should be used for crops. This village doesn’t have enough schools or Doctors for all these new people. Typical of this Labour council. Disgusting

Rainford village does not have the infrastructure to support hundreds of properties. The schools are full, doctors appointments take weeks. We have to travel down the Rainford bypass to do a weekly shop. The traffic is already dangerously high.
There is nowhere to park a car now so hundreds more is unthinkable!

The layout has been considerably changed following liaison with St Helens Council.

They keep building all these new housing estates especially around Sutton, but what about the infrastructure – schools, doctors etc. I don’t hear of any of that being planned. Most probably St Helens Council haven’t thought of it yet.

They are building on all available land in Sutton, and there is no extra provision for schools etc. I am glad they are now moving on to Rainford. There is a lot of open land there which is prime for a few housing estates.
Perhaps next year Rainford could also host the music festival. The damage it causes to the park is disgraceful.

It’s absolutely awful building on agriculture land, building houses should be kept to Brown fields

There is not enough doctors,schools,drainage,for more houses in Rainford,Rainford floods as it is the drainage can’t cope as it is

Having read the planning committee reports its clear that significant planning obligations are being secured for matters such as education and health facilities, public open space, biodiversity net gain and transport enhancements. Lancots Lane site is a brownfield former chemical works site and will provide 100% affordable housing. The Rainford site will provide at least 30% affordable housing in a highly sought after area, helping to sustain a rural village in which there is identified primary school capacity – would be good to latest masterplan image used in this article as its much improved from the one currently shown.

As others have already commented there are several issues with this. Number 1 is building on green belt, where is the wildlife corridor? Our wildlife needs these in built up areas and sadly this is what this will become and gardens here are not sufficient. Number 2 is linked to services in the village, I already find it difficult getting a doctors appointment so where will the service be for these new residents?? Other issues are linked to schools (primary particularly), Will classes just get larger and larger?? Number 3 is of course that there will of course be more cars coming through the village and at times trying to park. Residents in Rainford are already faced with anti social behaviour, new residents (who will probably pay a premium for non social housing) may find they’re not really moving to the idyllic village they think which ironically may be what the building of these new houses is doing to the area.

This development looks like a small village without any increase in support services – which are already stretched !

That area floods badly and new houses would only pressure the water to go on other areas. Not enough schools or doctors in the village… yes it’s a small village with not enough facilities for so many houses .. please reconsider this wonderful green belt

Rainford is not a village is as big as a town with everything a town has, never heard of a village with a high school. Rainford has lots of spare scrubland.

It’s what the borough needs, great income for the council .

No infrastructure to support a massive percentage increase for people and vehicles in Rainford. Doctor’s Surgery’s cannot cope with current population, no NHS dentists, one supermarket (Co-op) narrow roads which are currently in a very poor state of repair and minimal parking in the village. Overloading the traffic lights at Windle Island even more, the queues will become horrendous. Without mentioning that this is grade one farming land which is being dug up and built on further reducing natural drainage.

S Helens council are a disgrace , you’re constantly refusing planning for the smaller developers on sites like the Sutton Manor but support developing on greenbelt 🤯. Rainford does not have the infrastructure , transport links, GPs or schools for this many houses. You have recently closed their police station and library .

The village cannot cope with this doctors schools , parking etc, it can’t accommodate. It is an accident waiting to happen, that’s for sure
.

Lived in Rainford all my life and love the freah air and countryside. St Helen s council have always disliked Rainford and are proving it more with the amount of houses being built on grade 1 agricultural land. They had an architectural dig on that site recently and they found a tower and cottage remains. Wonder why this hasnt been advertised?

Government strategy is to build more and more on greenbelt. Then fill the rest with wind and solar.

So if 1/3rd of the housing is affordable by implication 2/3rds is unaffordable. Strong work everyone involved, we absolutely need to make sure developers are able to exploit the situation to build expensive 4 and 5 bed houses.

Hi Anonymous! Just a note that Place North West is a business-to-business publication, which means we use the same lingo as our readers, who largely work in property. When we say “affordable” it’s a specific government-designated tenure that is a certain percentage below market prices geared towards helping those on lower income. Market housing does not necessarily mean unaffordable, it just means that the houses go for whatever their market price is. Hope this helps.

November 06, 2023 at 8:40 am

By Julia Hatmaker

Let’s bulldoze the whole town and restore it to greenfield agricultural land. No pressure at all on local services then and the space will be restored to a purpose that apparently takes priority over any other form of land use.

The development in Rainford has support for sustainable and good quality development of new homes.
However, this is neither.

Yes, Miller Homes have made improvements from the poor planning application they submitted in 2022. However, they have not gone far enough, it could be so much better with some further changes.

One of the many concerns is that planning application has not implemented all the requirements of the Local Plan. The Planning Inspectorate reviewed and modified the Local Plan. Miller Homes have not implemented these requirements. Presumable the Planning Inspectorate thought these were important. It would be interesting to get their comments.

If the Local Plan can be ignored in this case, future developers will also ignore the Local Plan.

St Helens Council should want a good quality design that will be an example for future developments and a credit to St Helens Borough.

The Planning Committee should reject this planning application and give Miller Homes another opportunity to get it right.