Despite strong objections from local residents it is proposed that the Planning Comittee this evening accept a new site of 9 houses with its own access to Bankfield Lane.

The current major development has access via Blundells Lane.

The new access lane would be here on the slope of the bridge causing great concern with locals that this would be an accident blackspot.

The proposal would see an amendment to the house types and housing layout of 9 houses (of the 128 previously granted planning permission under phase 1) to incorporate a new access onto Bankfield Lane. This new access would serve 6 houses within the development, with the other 3 houses continuing to gain access from the approved highway network associated with the previous approval access via a widened Blundell Lane.

It is acknowledged that the proposed access would not fully comply with the site-specific requirements set out in Policy MN2.2 of the Local Plan. However, given that the proposed access would serve a small number of units and not the wider development, noting the comments of the Highways Manager who concludes that the proposal would not give rise to highway safety concerns, and with all other matters being acceptable, it is considered that there are no strong grounds to refuse the application. It is therefore considered that on balance the proposal is acceptable.



Many of the objections are clearly concerned with another access being so close to the bridge it will be an accident waiting to happen.

On Bankfield Lane Bridge in a distance of approximately 62 metres there will be 2 x Pedestrian pathways, 1 x Emergency Roadway, 1 x 9 plot Cul- De-Sac, on the right hand side there is J A Jones & Sons Headquarters, making a total of 5 entrance/ exits onto a very busy bridge. In a traffic survey carried out on behalf of J A Jones & Sons it states there will be 50 individual daily trips by various sized agricultural and commercial vehicles which travel from their Headquarters to their two Depots located on Blundells Lane. There is also a junction from The Grange and Merlewood Avenue onto Bankfield Lane in the same vicinity.

I am objecting to this application on the grounds that an entrance/exit on Bankfield Lane bridge is unsafe, especially when an Emergency Entrance for 'Blue Light' vehicles will be adjacent to this new entrance. If permission is granted there will be 5 junctions within 60 metres: Grange, Merlewood, entrance JA Jones, Emerg Entrance and access to 9 dwellings.

I have asked, on the grounds of safety, why another access road to the site couldn't be made and I have repeatedly been told that Sefton cannot insist on more entrances because Mr. Pike (Government Inspector) who 'Signed Off' the Sefton Plan, stipulated, "Only one entrance". And yet the current planning application totally contradicts this 'single entrance' edict!

This cul-de-sac sited on the bridge the has an entrance which has a 'blind' approach from the Crossens direction. Traffic continues to speed in excess of 50mph despite 'pillows' all along this main route out of Southport!! Traffic leaving the cul-de-sac directly onto the bridge would not have the time to avoid a major collision

I strongly object to this dangerous proposal! We had many accidents on this bridge including a fatality very near this proposal! That's why the bumps were put in place. I still watch busses, lorry's & motorbikes speeding over the bridge. I know from experience no matter how many people object, the decision is always taken away from us & is left to people who don't know this area & don't care about the people or the wildlife they are about to destroy. All I can say is it'll be blood on your hands if this goes ahead!!

Despite concerns it is recommended that the plan is approved with conditions.

The Planning Committee meet tonight at Bootle Town Hall, Wednesday 29th June, 2022 at 6.30 pm.

Proof yet again that Sefton Councillors pay no attention to the wishes of Electorate in the North of the Borough.

I can't understand why the bridge has not been demolished, surely it would have been an ideal opportunity to have made it a condition of the planning permission for the developments around there to have it removed.

Originally Posted by Alikado

I can't understand why the bridge has not been demolished, surely it would have been an ideal opportunity to have made it a condition of the planning permission for the developments around there to have it removed.

Probably because it would cost a very considerable sum to do so.

The bridge played a big role in my life in younger days - use to catch the train to/from Churchtown station to go to/return from school and, in later years, to visit Preston and Blackpool for a day out or to watch football matches......

Originally Posted by Alikado

I can't understand why the bridge has not been demolished, surely it would have been an ideal opportunity to have made it a condition of the planning permission for the developments around there to have it removed.

Originally Posted by Stuartli

Probably because it would cost a very considerable sum to do so.

The bridge played a big role in my life in younger days - use to catch the train to/from Churchtown station to go to/return from school and, in later years, to visit Preston and Blackpool for a day out or to watch football matches......

Pardon my ignorance but what was the bridge for? what was/is underneath.

Originally Posted by gsgsgs

Pardon my ignorance but what was the bridge for? what was/is underneath.

The Southport to Preston Railway line, the bridge should have been removed years ago.

Originally Posted by Stuartli

Probably because it would cost a very considerable sum to do so.

The bridge played a big role in my life in younger days - use to catch the train to/from Churchtown station to go to/return from school and, in later years, to visit Preston and Blackpool for a day out or to watch football matches......

The increased maintenance costs over the last 50 years would have paid more than paid for it.