Suggestions for enabling a rail link to Skelmersdale

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I'm not a fan of urban sprawl: where new housing must be built on undeveloped land, land like that between Rainford and the station is far more logical than a completely new area with no existing settlement. The prior existence of a railway station is a big plus. New Lane, Bescar Lane and Hoscar are other station localities that could be worth looking into, with regards to new residential.

Potentially, though I'm not sure I wouldn't just extend Ormskirk (there's lots of fields on the fringes) rather than create entire new settlements. But if I was going to do that, yes, an existing station location would make sense.

Burscough Mill Dam Lane also needs doing (station and housing developments). Crikey, it was mentioned in the 1970s Merseyrail proposals!

 

[telstarbox]

Does Merseyside have green belt?
The gap between Rainford and the railway looks a good place to put a lot of new housing, with decent road access and a station. That could help fund the extension from Kirkby.....

This map shows the green belt - https://cpre.carto.com/viz/8780f12c-4bd9-11e5-bd9c-0e4fddd5de28/embed_map
It is possible to have green belt land 'released' but Rainford is very tightly buffered at the moment.

 

[Gareth]

That map shows how flawed the whole green belt thing is. Take the thin slither of land between the eastern most neighbourhoods of Liverpool (Gilmoss, Croxteth, Stockbridge etc) and the M57. There's no point classifying that as greenbelt. It's not especially beautiful or rural, being sandwiched between housings estates and a motorway. The motorway itself may as well be the eastern urban edge of the city.

Also, why are certain cities constrained and others not? Leicester and the South Hampshire conurbation are omitted, for instance.

It's outdated one-size-fits-all national policy that needs a complete re-evaluation. There should be a looser national framework which aims for relatively dense innercities with apartments and townhouses of a reasonable size and quality. A step down in density as you get out of the centre and provision for larger houses. Where virgin land must be built upon, extensions to existing towns and places with rail stations, or lines where a station could be viable should be strongly recommend over completely new settlements built in the middle of nowhere. There's no need to tightly constrain somewhere as small as Rainford, in so much that nothing can be built in the relatively small area between it and its railway station.

 

[telstarbox]

I don't want to get too off topic but South Hampshire is also constrained by a National Park.

 

[Gareth]

To an extent, perhaps, but it doesn't rub up right to the urban edge of the likes of Portsmouth and Southampton in the way the greenbelt does to places as small as Rainford.

 

[si404]

I don't want to get too off topic but South Hampshire is also constrained by a National Park.

Two, in fact.

Though neither existed (OK, the South Downs NP had the East Hampshire AONB providing similar levels of protection) until this century, but the New Forest has been aggressively NIMBY for most of the last 900 years...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's outdated one-size-fits-all national policy that needs a complete re-evaluation. There should be a looser national framework which aims for relatively dense innercities with apartments and townhouses of a reasonable size and quality. A step down in density as you get out of the centre and provision for larger houses. Where virgin land must be built upon, extensions to existing towns and places with rail stations, or lines where a station could be viable should be strongly recommend over completely new settlements built in the middle of nowhere. There's no need to tightly constrain somewhere as small as Rainford, in so much that nothing can be built in the relatively small area between it and its railway station.

I must admit I was quite shocked that it was that extensive. I do get that people don't want to turn the whole North West conurbation into one big contiguous housing estate, but equally I'm just not sure there's the housing demand for that to actually happen, and I agree it's silly that it wouldn't be legal just to join up Rainford and Rainford Junction with a not-too-large estate.

 

[Meerkat]

You realise what a good thing the green belt is when you go up north/midlands to redeveloped post-industrial areas and see how cheap land leads to soulless low density sprawl. Probably looks good on the plans with all the green bits but in reality is just cut grass desert and scruffy scrub.

 

[WAO]

Said Yorkshire thrift was to standards which haven't been acceptable for over 30 years. They have, from the extensive repairs discussed, also potentially now have cumulatively cost more than would have been the case had better quality, more money been spent on initial installation in the first place.

Absolutely! There's also the use of the scrapline class 308's when Govt allowed the N Leeds wiring but no rolling stock, and the later attempt to start a class 91 at Skipton!.

The splendid Councillor head of the WYPTE was a driver, I believe, who wouldn't take no for an answer.

WAO

 

[BigCj34]

You realise what a good thing the green belt is when you go up north/midlands to redeveloped post-industrial areas and see how cheap land leads to soulless low density sprawl. Probably looks good on the plans with all the green bits but in reality is just cut grass desert and scruffy scrub.

The greenbelt is a very blunt instrument whose day has passed but it still has been one of the more effective policies to pronote density in England. We just need to stop building sprawl, although at least more people live in city centres now than 25 years ago which have better transport links.