The long-running planning dispute over the East of Maghull housing development took a new turn on Wednesday as Sefton Council's Planning Committee approved a request to modify the conditions attached to the 841-home estate north east of Poverty Land.
Spine Road Condition Adjusted
Previously, a condition stipulated that no more than 498 homes could be occupied until a spine road linking Poverty Lane to School Lane was completed. The developers—Countryside Properties, Persimmon Homes, and the East Maghull Consortium—sought to increase this cap to 598 homes before the road's completion, along with other adjustments. The reason cited was that while they had built the spine road from Poverty Lane to Whinny Brook on their site, the section between Whinny Brook and School Lane was on adjacent land beyond their control and remained unbuilt.
If the condition remained unchanged, the developers would have to vacate the site, delaying the estate's completion. Sefton's planning department argued this would reduce the borough's housing supply below acceptable levels, with an uncertain timeline for the housebuilder's return. This is the latest in a series of modifications since an initial 2019 masterplan for a 1,400-home development across two sites. Sefton Council initially refused permission, but the planning inspectorate later approved it with a condition that no more than 250 homes be occupied before the spine road was built. That number has gradually increased to 498.
Local Opposition and Concerns
Maghull Town Council objected to the latest application, submitting a petition with 25 signatures to the Planning Committee. An additional 16 local residents also objected, citing potential strain on the existing road network and arguing that the spine road might never be completed if the condition was varied. Local resident Chloe Parker spoke against the plan, expressing disappointment and noting that she and neighbours had been promised the spine road would be delivered in 12 months a couple of years ago, but it had not materialised. She emphasised that vital infrastructure like the road should be delivered before more houses and called for more detail on the parts of the road to be completed first.
Ian Hilliker from Persimmon Homes North West spoke in favour, stating that occupying the additional 100 homes would allow the builder to continue providing much-needed affordable housing. He acknowledged the importance of delivering the road as soon as possible and noted that while the delay on the section outside their control was not strictly their fault, they had engaged with potential contractors. He added, "The intention is to actually have boots on the ground this summer," and stressed, "We are mad keen to get this road in."
Maghull East councillor and housing and highways Cabinet member Phil Hart expressed concern in a written statement, noting that Maghull residents had endured years of disruption. "My concern is simple: we are here again. The spine road has still not been delivered," he said. He welcomed progress but stressed that residents had heard promises before, and the situation must avoid a 10-year build becoming a 15-year build. He added, "This must be the final reset, not another delay, another promise."
The application was approved, with two councillors voting against it. The council imposed conditions, including that no more than 548 dwellings shall be occupied until at least 150 metres of the remaining spine road north of Whinny Brook has been constructed.
HMO Application Rejected in Litherland
Elsewhere on Wednesday, plans for a four-person house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Litherland were rejected, despite planning officers recommending approval. The application sought change of use and associated alterations, plus a rear dormer extension at 126a Linacre Road, a two-storey maisonette above a shopping parade. Seven objections were raised, citing concerns over increased noise and disturbance, loss of privacy, potential overlooking from the dormer, and pressure on parking spaces. Some argued there might be an increased risk of crime and antisocial behaviour, though the council noted it assesses applications based on physical characteristics, not occupant behaviour.
Planning officers deemed the project acceptable, stating it would provide appropriate accommodation and that HMO concentration was below the threshold in planning guidelines. They noted the property could already accommodate a family of four, so the proposal would not substantially increase footfall. They also decided the proposal would not cause unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of outlook, privacy, light, or disturbance, and that highways, noise, and environmental issues could be addressed. The council's highways team initially raised concerns over access and parking but were reassured after further details were provided. The extension was described as "modest in scale" and would not significantly change the property's appearance.
However, at the meeting, Litherland councillor John Kelly said, "This application is totally unacceptable for the area." He and other councillors raised concerns about the overgrown back yard, arguing it would not provide suitable outdoor space for occupants. Lib Dem councillor for Ainsdale Lynne Thompson questioned how the space would work with bins for four people and a bike store. Lydiate and Maghull Community Independent councillor David Leatherbarrow argued that the gated alleyway at the back could lead to noise complaints from frequent comings and goings. While officers maintained disturbance would be no more than from the existing two-bedroom home, Leatherbarrow countered that HMO occupancy typically means more frequent activity. Councillor Kelly moved to refuse the application, and his motion was backed unanimously.
The full Maghull planning application can be found on the council's website under reference DC/2025/01351, while the HMO application is under reference DC/2025/01869.
