Welcome to Liverpool Confidential
Reset Password
The Confidential websites will be undergoing routine updates. This may cause the sites to go offline. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience.

You are here: Liverpool ConfidentialNews & Comment.

D-Day for Sefton Park Meadows

Councillors expected to vote for sale - despite 1,284 written objections

Written by . Published on September 30th 2013.

D-Day for Sefton Park Meadows

THE controversial sale of Sefton Park's Meadowlands is expected to be given the go-ahead this week.

Members of Liverpool City Council’s Regeneration Committee, who will make the decision, have received more than 1,200 written objections to the proposed sale of the 2.62 hectare site which was revealed in March.

Mayor Joe Anderson wants to flog the land for an executive housing development.

But Thursday's Town Hall meeting is likely to “note the comments and objections” - and still back the plan. It will then go to the Mayor and his cabinet for final approval.

Under the rules for the “disposal of public open space”, the city council has been legally obliged to go through a public consultation exercise on whether to sell or keep the land which Mayor Anderson says is used "mainly as an area for dog fouling".


Irony aside, few of the leading lights in the debate expected it would be no more than going through the motions. 

Even so, the expected decision will come as a blow to an army of campaigners wanting to keep the Meadowlands as green space.

The council stance is the Meadowlands does not form part of historic Sefton Park, and in any event it would represent just half of one percent of green space within a mile radius.

This week's expected decision and the final rubber-stamping from the mayor and cabinet will trigger the procedures to sell the site, described as “incidental open space in Park Avenue, Liverpool 18”.  

It will still be up to the planning committee to consider detailed plans for the development, however, given the Mayor’s decision and Regeneration Committee’s endorsement, it is hard to see it standing in the way.


At that stage, there could be conditions attached over the mature trees lining the site and the scale and number of dwellings. But unless there is a legal challenge the Meadowlands will soon be lost to housing development.

The attractive site, at the bottom of Queens Drive, stands on the “wrong” side of the park’s perimeter road, Mossley Hill Drive.

Objectors have submitted ancient plans they say shows the Meadowlands was part of the land bought from Lord Sefton in the 1860s to create a new park for the city. In the original plans, the scheme to line the park with large villas would almost certainly have extended to the Meadowlands site. However, nothing was ever built there and the land has remained as green space ever since.

Birds, bees and the green lungs of a city: those objections in full

THE executive summary to Thursday’s meeting (in the name of Regeneration Cabinet member Cllr Malcolm Kennedy and Regeneration Director Nick Kavanagh) states: "In response to the open space notice 1,284 objections were received.

"As required under s123 of the Local Government 1972 the Cabinet are obliged to consider these objections (as detailed in appendix A). After due consideration of the objections and for the reasons set out in the report and appendix A it is recommended that the Council continue with the proposed sale of the land.”

Appendix A reveals cases keeping the Meadows range from concerns that there is already a surplus of land that could be built on in south Liverpool and that the both the ecology and mental wellbeing of city dwellers could suffer. 

These are the main objections received on post cards (including the name, address and signature).

*  "Sefton Park Meadows is part of our historic public green space and conservation areas of Sefton Park, important to the Park’s character and physical landscape features, specifically its trees and open grassland."

* "Loss of amenity and openness will degrade this special site and its contribution to provide high quality recreation, health, and ecology. benefits for all of us."

* "This urban green space has unique economic, social and biodiversity value now for its working ecosystems that are regulating air, water, noise, pollution and climate. The health benefits for us, of green space, are assessed at £300 per annum per person."

* The site has protection as green space within Liverpool’s Unitary Development Plan until 2016."

What the objectors said in full - and how the council responded to each argument - can be read here

Like what you see? Enter your email to sign up for our newsletters which are chock-a-block with more great reviews, news, deals and savings.

26 comments so far, continue the conversation, write a comment.

John ShawSeptember 30th 2013.

It's never over till the fat lady sings, you didn't listen now suffer the consequences.

AnonymousSeptember 30th 2013.

Once again Herr Diktator Anderson ignores the views of the electorate

AnonymousOctober 1st 2013.

most people involved in the protest will vote for anderson at the next election. sad but true

2 Responses: Reply To This...
John ShawOctober 1st 2013.

I disagree, most people didn't want a mayor in the first place, they were denied a referendum, we haven't forgotten that, nor will we forget the undemocratic antics of Joe and his cabinet. Labour will be the losers , I speak as a lifelong labour voter, and mine are not the only toes that Joe has succeeded in treading on. It's the one recourse we have left, the power of the ballot box.

John BradleyOctober 1st 2013.

I suspect Joe will get an increase majority at the next election simply because he has put the city first above the vocal minority special interest groups.

John ShawOctober 1st 2013.

Joe has just this minute been on the box predicting bankruptcy for the City of Liverpool, because of austerity cuts by the coalition government. He somehow conveniently forgot to mention his contribution of frittering away reserves. Whatever happens it should be remembered it happened on his watch, primarily because of his choices, Finch Farm, 25m to an unproven building contractor, the proposed Cunard building scheme, all of them "Joe's chickens"

1 Response: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 1st 2013.

They where paid for out of the reserve and as bricks and mortar they count as investment.

John ShawOctober 1st 2013.

These are not spontaneous events, we are led to believe that these deals have been the subject of due diligence, and have been in the pipeline for some time. Joe has had this information for some time now, it hasn't miraculously dawned on him, yet he has chosen to not heed the omens and indulge his own capriciousness. Millenium House and all of the soon to be obsolete council buildings will count as millstones I suppose.

Mickeydrippin'October 2nd 2013.

If Joe and the Committee actually decide to agree with the opposers and not sell the land, would all those who objected be prepared to go out every weekend to cut the grass and clear the dog muck and litter? I think not!

1 Response: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 2nd 2013.

and pay extra council tax to make if the high band houses missing.

John ShawOctober 2nd 2013.

What litter? what dog muck? Most dog walkers are responsible people, it might be an idea if you go view the meadows, instead of listening to the meanderings of Joe's limited thought process.

5 Responses: Reply To This...
Mickeydrippin'October 3rd 2013.

Alright, perhaps no dog muck and not much litter but if not sold, like any other open space, SPM will have to be maintained. So will the local people who have objected agree to pay a liitle extra in Council Tax towards the ongoing costs?

John ShawOctober 3rd 2013.

At the risk of repeating myself Mick, why does it come across as local people, the people opposed are a divergent bunch, see bottom of page.

John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

It comes across as local people because there is constant reference to locals objecting. When it suits you swap between who objects, you are in a minority are fair democratic process has been gone through and you lost, your mass protests consisted of a few people wearing dodgy hand knitted scarves.

John ShawOctober 3rd 2013.

No JB the City of Liverpool and it's citizens lost, a few people wearing dodgy hand knitted scarves will be the least of Joe's worries, SPM will also be the least of his worries. SPM will not evaporate, perhaps you'll get to witness a real mass protest. Whether Joe is still here to witness it or not, only time will tell.

John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

No JS You and your view lost, what your now threatening is to ignore the democratic system because it doesn't suit you. It is a victory for Liverpool & it citizens and a blow for you and your special interest group.

John ShawOctober 2nd 2013.

The residents already pay an inordinate amount of council tax, we're about to get a second class bin service, our we to get a rebate. I think not. We already suffer from a high volume of traffic, which is about to be exacerbated by further development.

1 Response: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 2nd 2013.

I think you'll find that no one on Lives of SPM and so doesn't pay any tax. If there is any limited though process showing around her it's you JS.

John ShawOctober 3rd 2013.

Your post speaks volumes JB.

1 Response: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

Mostly about your rather bigoted POV.

EditorialOctober 3rd 2013.

Press release from the opposition Lib Dems today: "Today at a special meeting of the Regeneration Select Committee meeting, councillors will decide the fate of the Meadowlands in Park Avenue, Liverpool 18. Despite heavy opposition the Mayor and his Administration have continued with their plans to flog the land for housing. Councillor Pat Moloney, the Liberal Democrat who will be attending the select committee meeting, said "it’s blatantly obvious by the high number of written objections to the loss of this land that it is valuable as green space. The Mayor has made his views on the Meadowlands perfectly clear but we will be supporting the many campaigners who have worked tirelessly to protect this land and we will be voting against the sale."

1 Response: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

1000+ written objections so that is less than 1% of the population of Liverpool.

John ShawOctober 3rd 2013.

1284 objections, a petition of 7,500 opposed to the sale. Significant number of people I'd say. Joe has the same problem with figures as well, He interprets 58,000 who voted for him in the mayoral election as being pro sale of the meadows, which couldn't be further from the truth. He also tried to claim this was representative of 50% of the electorate, another misnomer. The facts are that approx. 15% of the population voted for Joe, or the Labour banner, not all of which want to see the sale of the meadows. I and many protesters are not opposed to development whatever shape or form, we're opposed to the sale of the meadows and green space. There have over the course of several years been developments. none of which have been opposed to anywhere near the same degree as this. Ibbotson's lane, Grosvenor, Pennyford, Aigburth Vale school, Old House At Home, Jericho Lane, Aigburth Vale, Gorselands, Sudley, Underlea, the list is endless. The truth is many of the protestors would be just as opposed if it were on Joe's doorstep, or for that matter the corner of Grove St. This doesn't fit with any of Joe's cries of nimby, tonight at the regeneration select committee the oaf reverted to type citing "there was no green space where I was brought up", well Joe I am the real "Dicky Sam", it's yet another of your porky's.

3 Responses: Reply To This...
John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

You said it you self they are oppose anything anywhere, they don't want change, non, nothing, they are opposed to everything. Some of them, the Lib Dems are opposed to it because of who is doing it. You reasons for opposing are mostly nonsensical making claims about what the meadows is used for and what properties it has. It a little used piece of environmental near desert.

John ShawOctober 3rd 2013.

You obviously construe whatever you want, I suggest you read it again, it doesn't say "they oppose anything ,anywhere". It's quite specific, we are opposed to the sale, whether it is on your doorstep or ours.

John BradleyOctober 3rd 2013.

I stand by my analysis.

To post this comment, you need to login.Please complete your login information.
Or you can login using Facebook.

Latest Rants

Brian Giblin

Any Phottees of the Balfour Institute ?? What was its main use Posh School I saw Boxing Club nights…

 Read more

I agree with the Councillor. His examples really don't go far enough, because of the complexities…

 Read more

Perhaps a "dolmus" system could be used in the city centre, they work quite well for tourists and…

 Read more

Not price related but sad to see that they are doing away with the Citylink bus. This runs around…

 Read more

Explore The Site

© Mark Garner t/a Confidential Direct 2018

Privacy | Careers | Website by: Planet Code