Letters to the press etc: New Brighton

Objection sent to North West Government Office
Neptune does not meet the needs of the twenty-first century Read more...
Wirral Green Party, October 22, 2007

Approval of revised Neptune Scheme
ignores climate change and ever rising energy costs Read more...

Resubmission of the Neptune scheme
is depressingly 20th century Read more...

Councillors' comments are misleading
I would like to point out some inaccuracies in the comments attributed to local councillors in your article relating to the Neptune public inquiry (Anger over cost of public inquiry, March 28). Read more...
Cynthia Stonall, March 2007

Lessons from the Neptune fiasco must be learned
As the only political party to oppose the Neptune plans for New Brighton we are naturally pleased that the government has rightly rejected a fundamentally flawed scheme. Read more...
Patrick Cleary, August 2006

Neptune scheme is out-of-date
I would like to set the record straight following the numerous comments in your letters page regarding the many people opposed to the Neptune scheme in New Brighton. Read more...
Cynthia Stonall, June 2006

A better vision for New Brighton
Your anonymous letter of April 5th (Wirral Globe Let's create the 'new' New Brighton) paints a wholly erroneous picture as to the nature of the opposition to the Neptune scheme in New Brighton. Read more...
Cynthia Stonall, April 2006

Green Party (Wirral) submission to the Neptune enquiry
The Green Party (Wirral) would like to put on record its opposition to the proposed Neptune development in New Brighton. Read more...
Wirral Green Party, January 2006

Objection sent to North West Government Office

Case Officer Mr M Ashton
Spatial Development Team
Government Office for the North West
City Tower
Piccadilly Plaza
Manchester
M1 4BE

Re: WMBC Application No. 2007/6508 (Neptune phase 2)

October 22, 2007

The Green Party is deeply concerned regarding the proposed plans for the redevelopment of New Brighton. There are many detailed criticisms which can be made and we are aware that these will be covered in submissions from other concerned groups. Our purpose in this submission is to deal with three distinct aspects of these proposals which we feel make them wholly incompatible with the urgent need to create a truly sustainable society.

Firstly, the government has recognised the threat posed by climate change and has set targets for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It has also endorsed the Stern review on the economics of climate change which explicitly states that reductions in emissions today will have substantial economic benefits in the future. It should also be pointed out that the scientific evidence incorporated in the Stern review and in other recent government reports on climate change is being superseded by new evidence pointing to much more rapid impacts of climate change, especially with respect to the melting of polar ice caps[1] and the inability of the worlds oceans to absorb carbon dioxide[2].

A second area of concern is our societys overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels as an energy source given the their finite nature and the inevitability that at some stage we will need to transition away from fossil fuels. In particular, there is grave concern regarding future oil supplies. The UK is now a net importer of oil, and the International Energy Agency (IEA) is predicting a rapid decline in UK production from the current 1.7m b/d to 1.0m b/d in 2012 (World will face oil crunch in five years Financial Times 10 July 2007). Many experts agree that world oil production will peak within the next 5 years, and some are now arguing that it has peaked already (www.theoildrum.com/node/3064). On October 22, 2007, the Energy Watch Group in Germany issued a detailed report showing that global oil production peaked in 2006 and would decline at an average rate of 7% per annum in the coming years: www.energywatchgroup.org/Erdoel-Report.32+M5d637b1e38d.0.html. Certainly, the fourfold rise in the oil price in the last five years provides strong evidence for these claims.

Set against the decline in oil supply is a forecast increase in world demand (estimated at 2.2% per annum by the IEA), due in part to the rapid growth in developing countries (particularly China and India). Furthermore, the remaining oil reserves are mainly concentrated in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - areas of the world that are politically unstable and are themselves experiencing rapid growth in oil consumption, therefore leaving less available for export.

These recent changes should set alarm bells ringing throughout the planning system. The supermarket model of food distribution flourished in the late twentieth century, with centralised depots (dependent on transporting food over large distances) giving economies of scale - but it is now clear that this is inappropriate for the twenty-first century. The fuel blockade by farmers and hauliers of 2000 showed within a few days that supermarket shelves became empty when fuel supplies were withdrawn. Local farmers markets on the Wirral supply fruit, vegetables, meat and ready-meals from Cheshire and North Wales, while supermarkets supply from across Europe and the rest of the world.
We feel that it would be folly to ignore these warning signs and press ahead with a development with another supermarket as its focal point (which would lead to the closure of more local shops selling local and regional produce), just at the time when it has become clear that we should be reducing our dependence on oil for food transportation. Residents of New Brighton would be forced to travel further to purchase food, and this would result in real hardship as oil-based travel becomes less and less affordable over the coming years.

In summary, the Neptune scheme for New Brighton is based on outmoded ways of thinking which have been seen to result in unsympathetic development in other locations and which are wholly incompatible with our need to deal with climate change and address our potentially catastrophic dependency on oil.

We would also alert you to the fact that the rapid increase in oil prices has dramatically raised the cost of all infrastructure related developments. Given the likelihood that this trend will continue, we are concerned that a rapid escalation in costs could undermine this development. We would be keen that there should be no taxpayer exposure to further rapid escalations in costs associated with this project.

Our third point is that we find it completely unacceptable that the considerable commercial potential in New Brighton has been allocated to a single company. At a time when Government policy is that choice brings many benefits it is glaringly inconsistent that the people of New Brighton have been offered no choice whatsoever in who designs the redevelopment of their locality. The Green Party strongly believes that a far more sympathetic and sustainable development plan could be developed if a more flexible approach were to be adopted. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that similar issues will arise in relation to other proposed developments with the Borough.

We trust that you will take these issues into account and urge you to give them a high level of priority. Please reject this application.

Yours sincerely

Patrick Cleary
On behalf of
Wirral Green Party

[1]. Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D.W. Lea, and M. Siddall, 2007: Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. Royal. Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
[2]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053903.stm
[3]. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3060

Approval of revised Neptune Scheme

The unanimous approval of the main political parties for the revised Neptune scheme in New Brighton clearly demonstrates their poverty of vision. Despite a hugely expensive public enquiry, no lessons have been learned. If this deeply flawed scheme goes ahead, New Brighton will be blighted by an unwanted, ugly supermarket that will suck money out of the local economy. Wirrals premier tourist destination will become another tacky clone town and its potential as a unique and special leisure destination will be fatally undermined.

In the face of climate change and ever rising energy and food costs we urgently need to relocalise our economy. This scheme takes us in completely wrong direction. Unfortunately, the die was cast at an early stage when Wirral Council entered into a lock-out agreement with Neptune and shut the door on a truly inspiring redevelopment plan. It can only be hoped that the North West Development Agency will take a more intelligent, long term view of New Brightons huge potential and put the Neptune scheme where it belongs - in the dust bin.

Bekki Koncienzcy
Wirral Green Party
October 2007

Resubmission of the Neptune Scheme

On October 9th the Planning Committee of Wirral Council will consider two important applications that provide a clear litmus test as to the future direction of our community and whether we have learned anything from the mistakes of the past.

When the Neptune scheme for New Brighton was comprehensively rejected last year it was hoped that the Council and the developers would try and understand why and fundamentally reappraise their approach. People visit New Brighton to enjoy the areas natural attractions, fresh air and panoramic views. They do not, I believe, want to see another ugly supermarket plonked on one of Wirrals prime locations. Neither do they feel that a casino, bingo hall and budget hotel will complement New Brightons natural assets. The whole scheme is depressingly 20th century and should be rejected by every councillor who cares about the future of New Brighton.

At the same meeting the application to pave over parkland at the Warrens Nursery site in Thingwall to facilitate a medical surgery and associated car parking will also be considered. Apart from the loss of greenbelt land and the inevitable increase in traffic, this scheme will force patients to travel further at a time when we should be localising essential services. Indeed one of the Councils stated aims is improving access to health services. This scheme would clearly do the opposite and will particularly impact on the most vulnerable members of our community.

The mainstream political parties in Wirral have a miserable track record in supporting carbon heavy, ugly developments that undermine the quality of life for everybody. There are few signs that October 9th will see any change in this pattern. I trust the residents of Wirral will remember this the next time the grey parties remind us of our need to tackle climate change and conserve resources.

Bekki Koncienczy
Wirral Green Party
October 2007

Councillors' comments are misleading

I would like to point out some inaccuracies in the comments attributed to local councillors in your article relating to the Neptune public inquiry (Anger over cost of public inquiry, March 28).

Councillor Hackett is completely wrong when he states that the Green Party does not want to see the renewal of New Brighton. On the contrary, we are delighted that the Floral Pavilion is to be rebuilt. We have, however, highlighted the poor public transport provision in the immediate area and the failure to tackle traffic congestion. We also questioned the inclusion of yet more flats (37) in an area that is already awash with residential developments. Moreover, we are deeply apprehensive that this "first phase" is simply a precursor to the retail/residential elements of the Neptune scheme being imposed on New Brighton, despite overwhelming rejection at the public inquiry. We continue to argue that an open design competition is by far the best way forward for New Brighton.

The comments attributed to Councillor Gardiner are also misleading. If Wirral Council had adhered to its own planning policies as set out in the Unitary Development Plan for Wirral, which it imposes on all other developments, then the fiasco in New Brighton would have been averted. It is scandalous that tax payers have had to pay out thousands of pounds to defend the indefensible at a costly public inquiry into an appalling scheme that flaunted the fundamental principles of the Councils own approved planning framework for the resort.

Cynthia Stonall
Wirral Green Party
March 2007

Lessons from the Neptune fiasco must be learned

As the only political party to oppose the Neptune plans for New Brighton we are naturally pleased that the government has rightly rejected a fundamentally flawed scheme. The feedback from local residents showed that they want redevelopment that is sympathetic to New Brightons attractions as a leisure and tourism facility. The very idea of placing a supermarket, petrol station, car park and a residential complex on the seafront clearly ran counter to these wishes and was driven by commercial rather than public amenity considerations. It is therefore hardly surprising that the government has labelled this scheme as being of poor quality design and one that could diminish the quality and character of the resort overall.

It is particularly disappointing to see local politicians who aligned themselves with Neptune now blaming the opposition for its demise. Instead they should look at its fundamental flaws and recognise that this was never the right plan for New Brighton. Questions also need to be asked as to the use of scarce resources at Wirral Council and whether these fundamentally flawed plans have already undermined local investment.

The real danger now is that instead of learning the appropriate lessons, Wirral Council will continue along a misguided path of promoting a Neptune Mark II. This will simply waste more resources and further polarise the community. The Green Party has always argued that the exciting opportunities for the development of New Brighton should be the subject of an Architectural and Development competition. This would result in proposals that are complementary, inspiring, achievable, and sustainable and that could be supported by all the people of the town, the residents of Wirral and the tens of thousands who visit the resort every year.

Patrick Cleary
Green Party (Wirral)
August 2006

Neptune scheme is out-of-date

I would like to set the record straight following the numerous comments in your letters page regarding the many people opposed to the Neptune scheme in New Brighton. Just because I am against this scheme does not make me opposed to the regeneration of New Brighton. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, in many years of campaigning I have never met anybody who does not recognise that New Brighton needs renewal.

This does not mean that we should blindly accept a multi-flawed scheme just because the powers that be say that it is all or nothing. This is clearly not true and is nothing short of an insult to local residents, irrespective of their views regarding Neptune.

New Brighton has obvious potential as a magnet for leisure and tourism. This was recognised in the community consultation for the Unitary Development Plan 2000, which clearly emphasised leisure and tourism. We should therefore encourage investment that builds on these natural advantages in a sympathetic fashion. Our country is not short of talented architects who have an excellent track record in designing schemes that enhance the local area and improve the quality of life for all. However, it seems that this is not good enough for New Brighton and our only choice is to be lumbered with another supermarket, car park and petrol station, slap bang on the seafront. Are we really to believe that the same councillors who have neglected New Brighton for decades are best placed to determine its future development.

Furthermore, it has to be said that in the era of climate change and mounting concerns over energy supplies that a scheme based on yet another supermarket, with the inevitable increase in traffic and food miles, is wholly inappropriate. Wirral is already awash with supermarkets, which may offer convenience to some but at what cost to our environment and to those without transport. In this respect, Neptune is a tired, out-of-date scheme that clearly puts big business interests first. New Brighton deserves better.

Cynthia Stonall
Green Party (Wirral)
June 2006

A better vision for New Brighton

Your anonymous letter of April 5th (Wirral Globe Let's create the 'new' New Brighton) paints a wholly erroneous picture as to the nature of the opposition to the Neptune scheme in New Brighton.

Everybody, including those like me who are opposed to the Neptune plan, recognises the need for investment in New Brighton. However, rather than building on the resorts obvious potential for leisure and tourism, the Neptune scheme involves a wholly inappropriate commercial development. This will generate a huge increase in traffic, destroy the visual aspect and suck the lifeblood from the towns existing retailers. Furthermore, as your report of last week clearly demonstrates, it is an inappropriate development for an area prone to flooding especially when one considers the future implications of climate change.

I believe the exciting opportunities for the development of New Brighton should be the subject of an Architectural and Development competition. This would result in proposals that are complementary, inspiring, achievable, and sustainable and that could be supported by all the people of the town, the residents of Wirral and the tens of thousands who visit the resort every year.

Cynthia Stonall
Green Party
April 2006

Green Party (Wirral) submission to the Neptune enquiry

The Green Party (Wirral) would like to put on record its opposition to the proposed Neptune development in New Brighton. Our main objections are four-fold:
1. The loss of public amenity as the development will occupy large areas of existing public space.
2. The visual impact of the development which we regard as wholly inappropriate especially given New Brightons seafront location.
3. The proposed supermarket will have a negative impact on local retailers and will undermine efforts to foster local enterprises selling local produce. Other areas of Wirral (e.g. Heswall) have been badly affected in this regard as one single supermarket has come to dominate local food retailing.
4. The inclusion of a supermarket/petrol station will inevitably mean a major increase in traffic levels which when combined with traffic associated with the existing and proposed leisure facilities is likely to have an extremely negative impact on the local environment and will of course serve to raise traffic and congestion across Wirral. We do not have to look far for an example in this regard. Nearby West Kirby has seen a large increase in traffic levels since a supermarket was erected. Furthermore, its location close to the seafront is a constant reminder of the negative visual impacts of such developments.

New Brightons location makes it a natural magnet for visitors. Any redevelopment should be sympathetic to this. In this context the proposed supermarket/petrol station is wholly inappropriate and runs counter to any sensible measure as to what constitutes sustainable development. In particular we would want to see the inclusion of low impact, health enhancing facilities in any redevelopment. The local area would be much enhanced by a new leisure centre/swimming pool and an activity area (skate board, BMX facilities etc.) for young people.

Finally we are at a loss to understand why the Neptune proposal has come to dominate the redevelopment plans for New Brighton. A far more sympathetic and sustainable plan could be devised and other plans should be sought on this basis.

January 2006