A proposal to transform farmland into football pitches in Lathom, West Lancashire, has been overturned by the local council.
The application, which garnered around 100 objections, cited significant concerns regarding agricultural, environmental, and safety impacts.
Proposal Details and Community Opposition
The planned development by Andrew Webster included football pitches and facilities on farmland southwest of Meadow Lane. Local councillors, however, dismissed the initiative, citing the extensive opposition from residents. Concerns were primarily focused on the loss of agricultural land and potential risks to local sheep populations. Road safety, inadequate parking infrastructure, and environmental issues such as drainage and litter were also highlighted.
Community representatives noted that existing football facilities at Edge Hill University and Ormskirk School sufficiently cater to local needs, making the proposed development unnecessary. The proximity of the proposed site to utility infrastructure such as gas pipelines also raised safety concerns among objectors.
Animal Welfare and Environmental Concerns
Local farmer Liz Nelson expressed grave concerns about the welfare of sheep potentially affected by the development. She highlighted the stress and danger to pregnant sheep, which could result from proximity to large crowds and increased disturbance.
Ms. Nelson also warned about environmental implications, particularly relating to artificial pitches, which could deteriorate and produce harmful particles. Her stance underscores a wider environmental concern associated with changing high-quality farmland for recreational purposes.
The proposal’s potential for causing continuous disturbances from sports activities throughout the year was emphasised, with the community fearing adverse impacts on livestock and increased litter and dog roaming. Despite the proposal’s modifications, including fencing, opposition remained strong.
Economic and Social Impacts
Proponents of the plan, including Andrew Webster, argued it would create job opportunities and serve sporting needs. The facility was poised to operate daily from 8am to 9pm, potentially offering employment to full-time and part-time staff.
Consultations with Sport England, which supports youth development in sports, were noted. The partnership with JN Sports, a Liverpool FA-affiliated club, was highlighted. However, detractors maintained that the region’s existing facilities sufficiently support the community’s football requirements, casting doubt on the economic benefits claimed by the project.
Concerns regarding inadequate public transport infrastructure also surfaced. Residents argued that poor connectivity further complicated logistical arrangements for accessing the proposed site, thereby undermining any potential social benefits of the development.
Traffic and Safety
Councillor Helen Shaw raised traffic safety and congestion issues if the proposal were to proceed. She highlighted that the location was already an ‘accident blackspot,’ with poor public transport links adding to the challenges.
Shaw emphasised the absence of noise assessment studies regarding the potential increase in vehicular movement, which featured prominently among the objections. The rejection of the proposal was largely influenced by fears over the site acting as a catalyst for road accidents.
Traffic congestion being a critical and unresolved issue, the committee noted that further developments depend largely on comprehensive traffic assessments and improvements in public transport accessibility.
Concerns Over Public Consultation
Residents felt that the consultation process was inadequate, failing to reflect the entire community’s sentiment against the proposal. They argued that key voices were not sufficiently heard during the initial planning stages.
Councillor John Gordon cited the lack of evidence supporting the community benefits claimed by the proposers. Public dissatisfaction was evident throughout the process, with the application seen as lacking substance and thorough community engagement.
The lack of adequate consultation and transparency in addressing residents’ concerns served only to fuel opposition against the proposal.
Final Decision and Refusal
Steven Faulkner, the planning manager for West Lancashire Council, reported the late submission of vital noise and transportation studies, a factor contributing to the rejection. Officers emphasised the importance of timely information for informed decision-making.
Councillor John Gordon confirmed the vote to reject the application, citing the absence of compelling evidence or special circumstances to justify such a development. The council found no substantial arguments to support the need for additional sports facilities in the area.
The decision reflects an adherence to thorough planning processes and community-led insight, underscoring the importance of clear communication and comprehensive examination of all elements before proceeding with significant land-use changes.
Public Reaction
The community largely welcomed the council’s decision, viewing it as a victory for both residents and environmental conservation. Many expressed relief at the rejection of the proposal.
The refusal of the football pitch proposal highlights the critical role of community input and comprehensive planning in decision-making.
The outcome underscores the need for developments to adequately address environmental and safety concerns while genuinely reflecting the community’s needs and perspectives.
