Eccleston Park Mulbury
The project would be delivered across two phases with the majority of homes forming the second phase

Mulbury plots 1,000 homes on Eccleston Green Belt

Dan Whelan

The developer expects to submit a planning application this summer to build a residential community on the former Eccleston Park Golf Club in St Helens, which closed in 2018. 

The Eccleston Park Village masterplan would be delivered in two phases, according to the developer, and comprises 989 one-to-five-bedroom homes. Some 200 of the homes would be affordable, while a further 175 units would be aimed at over 55s. 

Additionally, a 30-space car park at nearby Eccleston Park train station is included in the masterplan, as well as a link road between Rainhill Road and Portico Lane. The scheme also features a health centre and pharmacy. 

The golf course closed in 2018 shortly after Mulbury bought the site.

The plans have sparked anger among local councillors and residents, who object to the redevelopment of the Green Belt site that is safeguarded against housing development in the local plan. 

A public consultation on the scheme,  is now open, raising concerns among local councillors who have criticised the developer for launching the consultation during the Covid-19 lockdown. 

However, Mulbury has set up a dedicated hotline whereby residents can have their say on the application without needing to attend a consultation meeting. 

Greg Mulligan, director at Mulbury Homes, said: “Our plans for Eccleston Park Village are a once-in-a-lifetime chance to create a new neighbourhood to accommodate families, the over-55s and people needing affordable houses.

“It really is a new village and will be a major asset for the community, creating homes, amenities and jobs that will help Eccleston Park and St Helens to thrive.”

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

1,000 houses planned, wow. fair play Mulbury. I am not that clued up on the planning position, what is the verdict – will they get a consent??

By What are the chances?

Put it this way, St. Helens MBC would approve a nuclear power station in Blackbrook if they thought they could get away with it…

By North by North-West

Eccleston is a nice district and this is a sustainable location close to the railway station and only a couple of miles from Prescot town centre as well as St. Helens. This whole area between Prescot and St. Helens is on the up, with a lot of attractive housing being built. Make sure these become proper neighbourhoods with space for community facilities and your onto a winner. It’s within walking distance of the new Shakespeare North.

By Pinion

As a resident who will be impacted by this, my self and thousands of locals will be objecting through formal routes. The land is Green Belt!!! The land is safeguarded!! Trying to get this through during lockdown! The Hotline – utter joke! Rainhill is totally congested now, road links out dated, local schools over subcribbed. The proposed road link will not do anything to ease Warrington Road. And, if MH think the promise of big jobs is a positive, if they get this through max would be around 40 jobs created once completed.

By G S

I think it is ridiculous to even think of building on the Eccleston Park Golf Club. This is greenbelt land, to build on this will take the lungs away from thousands and thousands of people who live in the surrounding areas. This development will create a massive urban sprawl with horrendous traffic and infrastructure problems. Not to mention the destroying of a haven for wildlife. St. Helens has plenty of brownfield sites that need development, why do you not investigate those. I suppose greed is at the root of this development. It is all about your company and not about the community and people that already live there.I will object forcefully as will thousands of others to this greenbelt grab for profit.

Your preposterous suggestion that 400 jobs will be created is just laughable. As is the suggestion that you will build affordable homes.
We have heard it all before.

By Annie

The planned development on this green belt will total overwhelm the area and infrastructure unleashing approx 2000 cars from the homes built the congestion on the area will be immense as other people have stated there is plenty of brownfield sites in sthelens that need developing before this development is even considered all these avenues for development should be exhausted before considering developing green belt.

By Craig Gould

Green Belt land and the local area needs more amenities like a golf course not more housing. There is already a retirement village in Rainhill and plenty of affordable housing in the area. The local road and community infrastructure would not be able to cope with a development of this scale. Profit over real homes and community development. Give something back to community make it a nature trail or park land for the local community to enjoy.

By B

Its all about raising money from council tax Houses equal income.

By Barry Ashworth

So long as Mulbury are legally obliged to rebuild these houses at their own expense once they start falling down in ten years’ time because their shoddy softwood frames have rotted…

By Moomo

I am totally against the plans forEccleston Park Golf Club it is Green belt and enough of our green belt has been taken away in the 57 years I have lived in Rainhill

By P McMahon

I do not agree with this plan , have the planners really looked at what they are doing. putting new roads on too roads which are heavily congested already. this is green belt. Why not build on brown land in St Helens . St Helens needs more houses , and regenerating . The builds are looking for more profit that’s why they have picked this space. They do not care about anything else. we still need proper meeting about this not for it to be passed ,due to lock down which is what the company is hoping for.

By margaret

They don’t own the land on the way in from Rainhill, it’s single lane traffic. There would be a massive backlash from all the local residents on all sides, a co-ordinated response, site access would be denied, a huge pain in the arse for the builders, it isn’t wanted, isn’t needed. No amount of brown envelopes will get this through the council. Dead in the water I’m glad to say.

By Local

How about instead of selling out and building houses that we don’t need, we just keep our green areas for access to all. Oh wait, St Helens council are a disgrace to the people they serve and sell out for a bit of cash.

By Daniel

Greed,greed,greed……St Helens council released a report stating there is more than enough brown belt land for development…but wait !! green belt land will bring in more income ….. St Helens council need to remember they are there to represent the local communities not their own agenda . Majority yes majority of us locals , DO NOT WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT… But why don’t we go back in time to the industrial era when St Helens was thriving ? And what I mean by thriving we had the highest levels of sickness due to the pollution levels in the country… great times…so why don’t we put an extra 2000 vehicles on the roads not to mention the other developments near by….. Great time’s ahead!!! Correct me if I am wrong but pollution levels are to be reduced not massively increased.. according to central government.

By Suzanne white

This idea best be thrown out by the council. Not the correct place for a housing estate or new roads. the train station has never had a car park and noone has ever complained about it. Take your housing estate elsewhere. make sure the land isnt built on, either plant more trees on there. Or make the fields available for grass roots sport. maybe al the residents of the area should buy the land so that no one can build on it

By Jean