Residents turn up in force and convince committee members to throw out storage plans for site
Garston residents celebrate victory after defeating plans for a new open storage site in their community
Campaigners scored a massive victory today as plans for a major industrial development in an area that local people say has been ‘grossly neglected’ was rejected by city councillors.
A large number of Garston residents were in attendance at Liverpool Town Hall to voice their strong objections to plans from Peloton Real Estate for the creation of an open storage site on a large area of land bounded by York Street, Brunswick Street, Blackburne Street and Window Lane.
The developers wanted to change the use of the site from industrial to open storage, including for the storage of plant/machinery, construction supplies, vehicles, pallets and self-storage containers. But the proposals have caused great concern around issues of noise and air quality for a community that is still reeling from permission being granted for the controversial expansion of a hazardous waste site in the area earlier this year.
The meeting heard a host of impassioned speeches from residents living in the area of Garston between a major railway bridge and the River Mersey, commonly referred to as Garston-Under-the-bridge. They spoke of feeling ignored and neglected over decades as more and more industrial developments have been allowed to take hold in their community.
Daniel O’Neil told the meeting: “This area has been crying out for new homes for a long time, so introducing a low-quality development like this would be a clear step backwards.
“Anyone who knows this community will know that this area of land is crucial to the regeneration of Garston under the bridge. Garston is for development, but it is for the right type of development and it would be absurd to throw away the progress that has been made for a harmful development. Peloton are not trusted in Garston.”
Darren Melia expressed concerns about the extra volume of traffic the plans would bring and the impact on the already troubling air quality in the local area that this would have. He said: “Our children will be breathing in everything this traffic brings with it. There could be 1600 extra vehicles coming into the area on a daily basis – on that basis along this should not be approved.
He added: “Garston has turned into a massive industrial estate with some houses on the side, but after years of decline we are seeing some small signs of promise. This would affect that progress and bring dark clouds to the area.” Speaking to the councillors directly, he added: “We voted for you, Peleton didn’t, please listen to us.”
Resident Irene Leonard added: “Liverpool as a city can only be ashamed of how it has grossly neglected Garston under-the-bridge. The council now has a unique opportunity to correct some of the historic wrongs and listen to the people of Garston. It is time to regain our pride and to invest in Garston.”
Responding, a spokesperson on behalf of Peloton Real Estate said a great deal of work had gone into addressing the concerns of local people. Planning officers also explained why they were recommending that the plans should be approved.
But the convincing arguments put forward by the residents speaking at the meeting and the fact that more than 1800 local people had submitted their objections to this scheme to the council clearly had a strong impact on the members of the planning committee.
Cllr Joe Hanson said: “”If you look at the amount of people opposing this plan, I think we as a committee should be taking a pause. I don’t think this application is suitable for the area and for the people who live there.”
Cllr Julie Fadden: “This is a huge site, bordered by a settled community. 1800 people have sent in objections, that is a huge storm of protest from people who have put up with the noise of this site for years. We don’t live there, they do, they know how it feels.”
“We also have a unique opportunity to try and help with the country and city’s housing crisis. We have got 1400 people in emergency accommodation in this city and it would be a complete waste of a piece of land like this to just put containers on it.”
Cllr Hanson proposed that the application be rejected and asked for the council to explore what actions could be taken to try and re-designate the land in question so that housing could be considered rather than industrial use. The motion was approved and the plans were rejected, sparking celebrations from the residents in attendance.