Planning Matters by Desmond Brennan - 27 February 2010

Regrettably, the Environment Agency (EA) have not released to us information concerning the Altmouth pumping station which they had promised to make available and which is essential if we are to have a proper understanding of the level of protection which the refurbished station will provide. We have now made a comprehensive FOIA enquiry seeking information of relevance to our concerns both for the pumping station and more generally for flood protection in the lower Alt.
Our report and recommendations to the Formby Area Committee on these issues has now been appended as an addendum to Watercourse Maintenance & Flooding Working Group’s report to Cabinet.
The Formby Area Committee, in response to our question to them at their Open Forum, has made enquiries of the EA concerning the possible installation of the refurbished original diesel storm pump. This is the pump which has been created from the parts of the two retired original storm pumps, and which we have been pressing for many months should be installed to supplement the two old storm pumps which are all we have to rely on for flood protection at present. The EA’s statements on the pump range from at one time saying that the pump was being refurbished and would be installed, then that they did not know what was being done, if anything, about it, and then that it had been refurbished and was being tested prior to delivery to a local depot, to finally that it would not be installed for budgetary reasons. The EA’s answer to the Area Committee has come in the name of a person with whom we have had no dealings before in our several encounters with representatives of the EA. The answer consists of two elements, one to do with the Lunt Meadows flood storage area and the other with the third storm pump.
Concerning the installation of the pump, we were very surprised to be given what appear to be sound engineering reasons for not installing it. However, that raises other questions for us, viz. since these engineering reasons will have always been relevant, why was the very considerable expenditure incurred in refurbishing the pump in the first place, why was no one in the project team aware of them and why were we given a budgetary explanation for the decision not to install?
Concerning the Lunt Meadows scheme, the answer to the Area Committee states that the EA have in mind the contribution the flood storage area when deciding the degree of resilience required for the pumping station. Originally, the Lunt Meadows scheme and the refurbishment of the pumping station were a unified scheme, but when that scheme failed to obtain EA approval in August 2006, the decision was made that the pumping station was to be refurbished as a stand alone unit. The computer modelling study, on which the specification of the refurbished station is based, does not include the flood storage area and currently there is no sound understanding how such a washland would affect flows at the pumping station. The last information we had concerning the Lunt Meadows scheme was that the computer modelling study for it had not been completed and the case for it was still in preparation; the project team were hoping to be able to commence the protracted approval process for it early in the New Year. So we are left to wonder how a scheme still at the design stage, and with no certainty of approval, could be used to influence the specification of the refurbished pumping station. It is important to understand that the refurbished station has been specified with reference to historical storm frequencies and intensities, while the Lunt Meadows scheme is intended to protect against the more extreme storm events anticipated due to climate change, as well as to provide experience of managing this potentially more power efficient but uncommon way of providing flood protection. I have submitted to the Area Committee our response to the EA’s answer, setting out the inadequacies and uncertainties of the EA’s position.

As I explained in the Society’s November Newsletter, the Council is required by the Regional Spatial Strategy for the NW of England (RSS2008) to build 500 houses per annum for the next 15 years and, in order to find the necessary land, the Council is to undertake an immediate review of its green belt land. Because this is such a serious matter, I have made enquiries both of of the Council and 4NW, which is the regional authority responsible for the RSS (along with the North West Regional Development Agency (NWRDA)), as to how the 500 units pa figure was arrived at. There is some ambiguity in the replies I have received, but my understanding is that, essentially, the figure is in fact Sefton's own estimate of its housing need, while the House Builders Federation favoured the figure of 550 units pa, but that neither estimate was based on the kind of formal analysis required in the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3). The Council has defended their figure, saying it was approved by the Panel responsible for the Examination in Public of the draft RSS2008 and ultimately by the Secretary of State. That may well be so, but we remain anxious that there should be carried out an analysis to the standard required by PPS3, which says Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the RSS plan period. This is to include having particular regard to current and future demographic trends and profiles, to the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people

and to the diverse range of requirements across the area.

4NW have confirmed that they and the NWDA do not intend to undertake a strategic review of the Green Belt as part of RS2010 (which is to supersede RSS2008); nor are they able to say whether 4NW/NWDA will undertake any strategic review of the Green Belt in the future. Because only the regional authority has the power to release green belt land, this means we have time to continue our enquiries. We also hope to engage the Campaign to Protect Rural England in exerting pressure to the same end at the regional level.

Regular readers of the Society’s Newsletter will recall the report in the November 2008 issue on plans for the redevelopment of the Powerhouse building and site at the end of Hoggs Hill Lane, which were consulted upon at an exhibition at Formby Pool. These plans have now matured into a formal planning application which will be decided by the Council’s Planning Committee on 10 March.
The shell of the original building would be retained and all its window openings, many of which have been bricked up, restored to become again distinctive features of this striking building, which has so long dominated the southern approaches to Formby. A very striking feature of the interior of the building would be a huge central glazed atrium extending over the four storeys from ground level to roof for the full length of the building, so during the day it would be flooded by natural light. It would be crossed at different levels by a number of walkways, and at ground level there would be waiting and resting areas and a large shallow pool water feature for the use of residents and their visitors. On either side of the atrium and accessed from it, there would be 60 apartments, 6 of them with one bedroom, 40 with two and 14 with three; 2 apartments would have access to private roof gardens. The later extensions to the original building, which were added at different times to facilitate the various industrial activities carried out in the building after it had ceased to generate electricity for the Liverpool to Southport railway, have already been demolished, and there would be a new extension, commensurate in design with the dignity and scale of the original building, to serve as the main entrance and reception area. At ground floor level, there would also be a swimming pool and gymnasium for the use of residents. The extensive site would include a screened car park and semi private and communal open space within landscaped grounds which would have wooded areas, walkways and a cycle way.
Access to the site was originally solely from a railway siding connecting to the main line, but, after power generation had ceased, access has been by a single track lane quite unsuitable for the HGVs and vans which serviced the industrial activity at the site. Under the proposal, access would continue along a resurfaced Hoggs Hill Lane, which would have passing places, and, at its junction with Belvedere Drive, there would be a remotely controlled gateway. Pedestrians, and we hope cyclists, would be able to bypass the gateway to access a right of way adjacent to the lane and connecting, one day, with the intended path along the R. Alt, which flows close to the site. Traffic modelling studies indicate that there would not be any issues relating to traffic flows, even at peak times.
The proposals, however, are not without problems. The site is located in Formby’s green belt and that gives rise to special constraints (please see the last issue of the Newsletter); indeed, were the application to be approved by the Council, it would have, on that account alone, to be referred to the Government Office of the North West, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, for the final decision. Another difficulty is that the site is rated a Flood Zone 3a (High Probability) and that has to be a matter of concern, notwithstanding the finished floor level would be 1.24 m above the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood level.
Despite these and several other problems, we warmly welcome these imaginative designs for the building and the site. We like very much the way the original features of this imposing historic building have been preserved, while at the same time giving them a new elegance commensurate with their transformed purpose. We hope that what at present is an environmental and social problem will become an asset and credit to this community through the eventual implementation of these proposals.

Posted by: Dr Reg Yorke - on: 27 February 2010