top of page
  • SSCA Admin

Urgent - Consultation Response Required

It has been flagged to us that Total Developments is consulting on its plans to turn the former Santander/Giro site into employment units, including logistics and distribution hubs with loading bays for HGVs.


You can access the consultation here:


Our Alliance is committed to improving the quality of life for residents in South Sefton and these plans touch on a number of our core objectives. Specifically the following:


  • Improve the quality of the air we breathe

  • Reduce the amount of traffic on our roads

  • Make our streets cleaner and safer

  • Address the negative impacts of the Port of Liverpool’s operations; and

  • Protect our communities from the impacts of climate change


We believe that this development could have serious implications for the immediate area and the wider communities here in South Sefton. You can read more in the “Our views” section of this page.


This consultation has not been well publicised, and it gives people very little time to respond. So, we have gone through the website and come up with some simple instructions on how to do this, as this section of the website isn’t the easiest to use.

According to the website, people have until Friday 12th July 2024 to do this, but as no cut-off time is specified, we recommend responding by end of day Thursday 11th July.


Please note that, when responding to consultations, it is really important that you put your own stamp on it, so your response is specific to you, and/or the organisation you represent. We have provided our views on this development which may be different to yours. If they are similar, whilst we hope this is useful, please don’t repeat our text word-for-word, or your response risks being dismissed as a duplicate.


Make your response personal to you and your lived experience.


The basics


  1. Read each section of the website, including the FAQs, to familiarise yourself with what is being proposed. There isn’t much to get through, so this should only take 5-10 minutes.

  2. Advise whether you’re responding individually or on behalf of an organisation by clicking the relevant box. (If you represent an organisation, you can – and should – do both)

  3. There is an error on the website. It contains a ‘dummy’ question called “Click to write the question text”. This makes no sense, but please ensure you select the same option as the following question (see below)

  4. For the question “Do you support the plans for the Site?” respond by checking the relevant box, advising whether you are in favour of, against, or even neutral

  5. For the following 3 questions “What do you like about the proposed development?” “How could the proposed development be improved?” and “Any other comments” we recommend typing your answer in advance in a Word document, saving this (so you have a copy for your records) then copying and pasting it into the relevant box. This is because the website is very user un-friendly and reviewing text as you type is extremely difficult. There doesn’t appear to be a word limit.

  6. Click Submit and you will receive the following message “We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.” No reference is provided, so take a screen shot and save this along with your documented responses.


Our views


The following is for guidance only. Please make your response personal to you/your organisation:


  1. For the question “Do you support the plans for the Site?” we will be responding as follows: Strongly Oppose

  2. For the question “What do you like about the proposed development?”, we will be responding as follows: Having reviewed the proposal, and having considered our lived experience in this area, whilst the promise of employment is always welcome, this must be balanced against the impact such developments have on our communities’ health, wellbeing, environment and quality of life. As such, we believe there are no positives to a development of this type, on this scale, in this location.

  3. For the question “How could the proposed development be improved?” we will be responding as follows: Large scale distribution sites on this scale do not belong in such a setting. This proposal could be improved by being situated on land immediately next to both the strategic road and rail network, connected to the docks by an alternative means to road and HGV. This would be in line with the port access study Sefton Council commissioned and was published in 2020, which you can view here: https://mysefton.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Inland-Port-and-Connectivity-Concept.pdf The current location perpetuates and increases a dependency on HGVs. This is unacceptable to us, as we cover in the Any other comments section below.

  4. For the section: “Any other comments” we will be responding as follows: Whilst we welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on your proposal, we discovered this website by accident. We would like to know how this website has been publicised, through what outlets, and for how long? We are extremely concerned about the short window given to respond. The website’s domain was only registered mid-June, yet feedback closes on Friday 12th July. What efforts have been, or will be made to engage with local people who aren’t online, or who find the online form difficult? We have found this form to be restrictive and extremely user-unfriendly. Please can you advise what accessibility standards have been applied when designing it? Will there be, or have there been letter/flyer drops through people’s doors? If so, which areas will or have been covered? Have there been, or will there be in-person consultation events to enable people to find out more about the scheme from your representatives and to raise their questions and concerns? As a result of the above we believe this process does not reflect a genuine attempt to listen to and consider local people’s views. More specifically, this proposal would invite HGVs and car traffic into an area where nearby residents already suffer the harmful effects of air, noise, light and vibration pollution from high traffic volumes. Any increase in these activities is unacceptable to our communities, our environment and our health and wellbeing. Houses, schools and places of work sit alongside the A5036, the A5038, a large section of Bridle Road and the connecting Park Lane. These will all suffer from the increase in vehicle movements this proposal would generate, which would inevitably spill over to other roads in our area. The site promotes the A5036 as a link to the M57, M58 and M6 but makes no mention of the impact of the increase in HGV and vehicle movements along the A5036 and Switch Island. Listing the site’s links to these roads and motorways is not an environmental benefit. HGVs generate the biggest volume of CO2 emissions and air pollution on the UK’s roads. What consideration has been given to the ability of the A5036 and Switch Island to cope with any further increase in traffic volumes linked to developments on this scale, when they are already accident blackspots extremely busy at today’s volumes? The website states that Sefton Council considers industrial, storage and distribution operations at this site as acceptable and goes on to promote its proximity to the docks. Sefton Council has made public statements on the impact of the port and associated activities on local communities and the environment. We do not consider entries in the Local Plan and the wording of your website as being an endorsement of the proposal by the Council, which is how it is presented. There are no details of the health impact resulting from the demolition of the existing site, the construction of the new facilities, and the subsequent use of the operational site, including increased traffic. What assessment has Total Developments made of the impact on air, noise, light and vibration pollution resulting from the above? Will you be producing a full Health Impact Assessment to accompany this proposal? Will you be publishing the details of the Biodiversity Net Gain assessment for this proposal?


We hope this guidance is useful. Whatever your views are on the proposal, please take the time to respond.


Thank you.

Team SSCA.

4,998 views1 comment

Recent Posts

See All

1 opmerking


alen thompson
alen thompson
09 jul.

It's great to see people taking pride in where they live (remember people out cleaning thier front step)my neighbour in Patrick avenue cleaned,mowed and weeded the island with help from other community minded residents and WOW it looks great,so come on don't wait around for the P--s poor council to do it have a go yourself if you can.

Ps has any one noticed dunningsbridge Rd it's a dirty,overgrown mess and that's what greets people coming of the motorway 🤮🤮

Like
bottom of page