Edge Lane Development

**Kev** · 07-10-2007

The fight may be over for residents campaigning to keep their homes in the face of a multi-million pound regeneration project in Liverpool.

A new compulsory purchase order (CPO) has been issued by English Partnerships to get the site of the £350m Edge Lane project cleared.

The aim is to transform the corridor from the M62 into the city centre.

Many of the properties have already been bought by the city Council, but nearly 70 residents are yet to agree.

One resident, Elizabeth Pascoe, had previously been awarded a High Court injunction to prevent work from continuing.

However, this new CPO means the slate is now wiped clean, although the new application is once again subject to objections and a possible public inquiry.

The project includes about 280 new homes, including sheltered housing and apartments, as well as new shops and a health centre.

The regeneration of the Edge Lane corridor is of critical importance for Liverpool and the region."

Eliot Lewis-Ward,English Partnerships.

Ian Hassall, Chief Executive of Liverpool Land Development Company, which is leading the Edge Lane Project, said most residents are behind the scheme.

"We know the overwhelming majority of the local community supports the plans for new homes, new business space, a much safer road and a much better environment.

"They are desperate to see progress and an end to the dereliction in this area. Indeed, residents have presented a petition to call for progress to be made.

"We owe it to the local community and the city of Liverpool to help bring about the transformation of this area." Eliot Lewis-Ward, English Partnerships Area Director for Merseyside and Cheshire, said: "The comprehensive regeneration of the Edge Lane corridor is of critical importance for Liverpool and the region." BBC Liverpool

kat2 · 07-10-2007

Nice to hear sense prevailing at last. Not sure why it took so long to do it though, considering the approach of 2008. We can now see a prime example as to why investment was made in the city center and not in the suberbs which continually hold up development.
Kat

**Howie** · 07-10-2007

We’ll fight on, say Edge Lane residents
Jul 10 2007
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

RESIDENTS living around Edge Lane in Liverpool today received letters ordering them to sell their homes.

Government officials issued another set of compulsory purchase orders as they tried to arrange the demolition of almost 400 homes.

They need to knock down the houses in order to press ahead with plans to widen the link road and build a new community.

But campaigners promised to fight the new order after pulling off a shock court victory last time they were handed CPOs.

More...

Campaigners have 28 days to object. If they do a second public inquiry will be held, probably later this year or in early 2008.

**Howie** · 07-11-2007

New fight against Edge Lane CPOs
Jul 11 2007
by Larry Neild, Liverpool Daily Post

A CAMPAIGNER fighting to save dozens of Liveprool homes from the bulldozer last night vowed to continue her battle despite being ordered to sell her home.

For almost three years Elizabeth Pascoe has battled through the courts against proposals to demolish homes in the Edge Lane area – including her own in Adderley Street – to make way for a new gateway into the city.

Along with dozens of other opponents, she was yesterday served with a new compulsory purchase order (CPO), issued to force homeowners to sell up.

The first attempt to issue a CPO led to a court challenge by Ms Pascoe which meant the entire £350m scheme to turn Edge Lane into an “urban boulevard”, had to be shelved.

Now she plans to launch a fresh challenge to the new CPO, which was issued by government agency English Partnerships.

“We will object to the CPO and there will have to be a second public inquiry, which means the original aim of having a new road by 2008 will not happen.

“Like EP we want to see progress and regeneration in our area, but unlike them we do not see the need to pull down our homes.

“We have learned a lot in the past three years and have gained much expertise as well as knowledgeable consultants as advisers.

“I fail to comprehend why the people behind this project refuse to even properly consider the alternatives we have put forward that will meet the aims of a new gateway while saving many of the homes.”

She predicted up to 50 residents and a number of businesses will lodge formal objections to the CPO by the August 6 deadline.

An inquiry is unlikely to be called until early in 2008, with no decision until at least the latter half of the year.

Ms Pascoe and her campaigners hope that the change at Number 10, and a new government team under Prime Minister Gordon Brown could also mean a shift in attitude to the removal of communities.

The new CPO affects around 400 homes, which EP says they need to knock down in order to press ahead with plans to widen Edge Lane and build a new community.

English Partnerships has said the CPOs are vital if the scheme is to go ahead.

Ian Hassall, chief executive of Liverpool Land Development Company, which is leading the Edge Lane Project, said most residents were behind the scheme.

Source: Liverpool Daily Post

**Kev** · 07-11-2007

Why can't they just let this scheme get underway, even after al this time? Hasn't it took its toll on the resisting residents? We've got this being stopped, plus now the Garden Festival site seems to be suffering from the same.

Where is it all going to end?

**Jericho** · 07-11-2007

What reports about Edge Lane CPOs fail to mention is how LCC deliberately ran this area down, allowing the housing stock to become more and more dilapidated so that living in the area became increasingly unpleasant and some people couldn't wait to get out.

I drive along Edge Lane about twice a month and it doesn't feel like a major congestion area to me. Compared to London, driving anywhere in Liverpool is a breeze. I'm not convinced that we need a dual carriageway right into the city centre (which is in effect what it will become). People should be encouraged to use the train more with the equivalent to South Parkway being built in the Broadgreen area. Driving into town is not ecologically sustainable and should not be encouraged.

**Kev** · 07-11-2007

I think that part of the resistance and legal challenges are carried forward because they can.

Fiar enough though, but where do they expect this to end?

**AK1** · 07-11-2007

It's important to remember that this scheme is about preventing edge lane from becoming too congested in the future. Currently at peak times it is horendous trying to drive down there and if nothing is done it will become more and more congested until it is gridlocked. Where not talking 5 or 10 years away, we're talking a matter of months away.
I have continually supported this scheme and still do as it will make the road safer for both pedestrians and drivers and it will vastly improve the lives of local people with new jobs and facilities. It will also improve the image of the area which at the moment is basically derelict.

To say that LCC let the area run down is wrong. The area has been in decline for the best part of 30 yrs and alot of the empty houses where originally put up for sale, but they wouldn't sell. Instead the council proceeded to buy the houses so that the EL Project could begin.
Most of the people who where living there where waiting for something like this to come along so they could get out and start a new life somewhere else.

The vast majority of people are behind the scheme and the suggestion that this demolition is the removal of a community is a load of c##p. There hasn't been a community there for decades and most of the people who are still refusing to move are only doing so to try and get more money for their property.
I hope for the sake of local people and the sake of the city that this part of the project finally gets the go ahead.

**Jericho** · 07-11-2007

Originally Posted by AK1

It's important to remember that this scheme is about preventing edge lane from becoming too congested in the future. Currently at peak times it is horendous trying to drive down there and if nothing is done it will become more and more congested until it is gridlocked. Where not talking 5 or 10 years away, we're talking a matter of months away.
I have continually supported this scheme and still do as it will make the road safer for both pedestrians and drivers and it will vastly improve the lives of local people with new jobs and facilities. It will also improve the image of the area which at the moment is basically derelict.

To say that LCC let the area run down is wrong. The area has been in decline for the best part of 30 yrs and alot of the empty houses where originally put up for sale, but they wouldn't sell. Instead the council proceeded to buy the houses so that the EL Project could begin.
Most of the people who where living there where waiting for something like this to come along so they could get out and start a new life somewhere else.

The vast majority of people are behind the scheme and the suggestion that this demolition is the removal of a community is a load of c##p. There hasn't been a community there for decades and most of the people who are still refusing to move are only doing so to try and get more money for their property.
I hope for the sake of local people and the sake of the city that this part of the project finally gets the go ahead.

Liverpool's rush hour lasts for about half an hour! Hardly a major inconvenience in the scale of things.

This scheme has potentially been on the cards since the go ahead was given for the building of the M62 more than 30 years ago! Also, the people who live there say that there is a community. Why are you right and they are wrong?

It's part of established practice for LCC to do this in local communities (ask people from the Scotland Road area or parts of L8) and I have observed this area being run down. Just as I have observed parts of Anfield, Edge Hill and L8 being run down.

Also. what is your evidence that people are ONLY refusing to move so that they can get more money for their property.

**AK1** · 07-11-2007

Originally Posted by Jericho

Liverpool's rush hour lasts for about half an hour! Hardly a major inconvenience in the scale of things.

This scheme has potentially been on the cards since the go ahead was given for the building of the M62 more than 30 years ago! Also, the people who live there say that there is a community. Why are you right and they are wrong?

It's part of established practice for LCC to do this in local communities (ask people from the Scotland Road area or parts of L8) and I have observed this area being run down. Just as I have observed parts of Anfield, Edge Hill and L8 being run down.

Also. what is your evidence that people are ONLY refusing to move so that they can get more money for their property.

Firstly Liverpool's rush hour doesn't last too long now but in the near future as I said above, it will last alot longer. Maybe there is a community there, but I have noticed that 'communities' only ever appear when something that will effect everyone is planned and everyone suddenly says that the 'community' is being torn apart.
My evidence for saying that some of the people are only waiting for more money is that every time these people are on the news, all they talk about is how they think they should be offered more for their property, they never say anything about the community.

**Howie** · 07-12-2007

I've known Liz Pascoe for a number of years. She was a mature student in the department that I work when she did her degree in Environmental Science. This is not about money to her, it is purely a matter of principle. That is what they never understood. It is true, however, that the initial offers to home owners were derisory.

kat2 · 07-12-2007

Why should the council foot the bill to do up houses just because a few wish to stay there I take it they are privatly owned? There is that much legislation now governing housing stock condition and fit for purpose. All housing stock has shelf life once beyond a certain point it becomes unviable to either refurbish or modernise. Take for example today most home owners wish to purchase a house or home with somewhere to park. To do up these propertys would probably cost more than it would to demolish and rebuild, (if you take into condition the building stocks life). re plumb re wire, new sewarage, new damp course, re insulate to the decent homes standard! *

* of which many would fail due to lack of caverty! Fire regulations if made into flats, and car parking spaces needed for that. so, is it really viable to do up these homes and if you still feel the answer is yes then shouldnt the home owners dig into their own pockets? If I was the council I would demolish the stock they have purchased and just leave the one or two homes and force them to bring theirs up to current day standards.
kat

**Howie** · 07-12-2007

The majority of the properties affected were owned by private landlords or housing associations. There has been studies conducted that suggest the properties could have been brought up to modern day standards for less than the cost of the demolition let alone the rebuild. Also there have been alternative proposals that would have met the aims of the regeneration without demolishing so many properties. I don't think that if Edge Lane had been in London demolition would have even been considered. Nevertheless I do agree that now that so many people have been 'pursuaded' to leave and so many properties are boarded up that a way forward must be found. However, with attitudes having hardened on both sides I don't see much hope of compromise so I guess we'll just have to wait for it all to go through due process.

**AK1** · 07-12-2007

I have viewed the alternative plans drawn up by opposers to th EL project and they are frankly not an option. Their plans would see no parking spaces created and the dual carriageway would literally be on the doorstep of the houses. There is also no provision for new businesses or facilities for the community.
Some of these people seem hell bent on saving the houses no matter what the cost. In this case it simply isn't viable. I hate to see these kinds of houses go just as much as anyone, but in this case it is the safest, cleanest and basically best option for everyone.