Miller outlines ambition for 337 homes in Rainford
The housebuilder has launched a consultation for its plans to build a £14.7m neighbourhood off Rookery Lane.
The 32-acre site is bounded by Higher Lane to the north, Rookery Lane to the west and Rainford Linear Park to the south.
Of the proposed 337 homes, 101 would be designated affordable under the Miller Homes proposals.
Miller Homes estimates the development will bring £30.5m in investment to the Rainford community, of which £14.7m would be construction costs.
Jonathan Steggles, land director at Miller Homes, said: “Miller Homes has a strong track record in the North West and this development gives us a great opportunity to continue building sustainable homes in quality places.
“We pride ourselves on high-quality design and materials, ensuring energy efficiency,” Steggles continued. “Together, our developments represent a multi-million-pound investment into the local economy, supporting over 156 jobs in the process.”
Miller aims to submit a detailed planning application to St Helens Council in July. If plans are approved, initial timetables have construction beginning in February 2023 with the first homes going on the market in September that same year.
Barton Willmore is the planning consultant for the project, while BECG is the communications consultant. Sten Architecture created the draft layout for the scheme.
Consultation on the project continues through 6 June. Learn more at millerhomesconsult.co.uk/rainford.
You state that it will be bring £30.5 million into the local economy and create 156 jobs, but this will not make any improvements to the village or its residents,indeed it will have a very negative impact.
The only benefit potentially could be for the shopkeepers who could benefit from increase footfall, but parking in the village is very difficult now and with your development will make it much worse.
The disadvantages.
1) It rips up valuable grade 1 farmland which should be used to grow crops in present uncertain times. The are many brown field sites in St Helens which should be considered first.
The population of Rainford is approx 10000 and your development could increase this by approx 1000 10% given an average of 3 residents per household. This increase will put much greater pressure on the already stretched infrastructure of Schools, Doctors and Dentist surgeries.
Then we come to the roads, with 387 houses it is safe to assume that each property has at least 2 cars therefore approx 775 extra cars on an already stretched road network.
Your site exit and entry are on Higher lane, which is close to a notorious bend increasing the accident risk. The exit and entry onto Rookery lane is riddled with pot holes, leading onto Church Dd and Pasture Lane before exiting onto The Rainford Bypass. These roads are badly maintained by St Helens and as I travel on the daily its dodge the pot hole situation.
This is not a NIMBY response but a considered view point taken into consideration with all the negative points listed above.
I accept that new houses have to be built, but brown field sites first please.
By John Atherton
This is awful news for rainford. My friends live in the area and this will not only de-value their home that they have just spent a fortune renovating but will also cause a massive amount of disruption during building. Not only that, but the very small road leading to the site is already cramped. Adding this many houses to the area can only be a negative thing for everyone currently living there. I think it is disgusting that it has even been considered as an option.
By Anonymous
It would be a hugh mistake to take away all this green belt, as once taken it cannot be returned. Rainford is a village not a town and would be spoilt for ever.
The infrastructure would not support this proposal. Three primary schools, two doctors surgery’s, reduced bus service, one supermarket, no banks, no youth clubs.
You would be taking away the heart of the village.
By Anonymous
Nimby overload on here. All the old classics getting rolled out.
By Geoff
Same old trope’s being rolled out here, anyone who doesn’t agree must be a Nimby. What a childish argument.
By Jimbob
Building on prime arable farm land is not acceptable. This development will add additional pressure to an already strained village centre.
I just cannot support this
By John Harrison
There is no need for these houses !
By Sue Gee
The usual negative comments from the locals who believe only they are allowed to live somewhere…
First off, what do you think was there before your home was built? Fields!! I know shock!!
And secondly, all of your comments assume that everyone that purchases one of these properties will come from outside of Rainford.. so sad.
By Local Resident
This is prime agricultural land which is much needed at the moment given the situation of shortage of crops brown belt land of which there is plenty in St Helens area should be built on first.
The schools and an already overstretched health service are going to struggle to cope with the extra number of people moving into the area.
The roads in the area are narrow and already overcrowded at certain times during the day. They were not built for the amount of traffic on them now so increasing that number of cars will only worsen the situation and could lead to an increase in accidents. The proposal you have made to widen the road at the entrance to the new build will not improve the flow of traffic leading into the area.
This development will bring jobs into the area but on a short term basis during the building There is very little parking in the village centre so the shops are not going to pick up much extra trade from this new build.
By Anonymous
The Nimbyist obviously don’t reside in the area
By CBA
Why has grade 1 agricultural land been considered for building on? It is criminal that the best quality of agricultural land is going to be lost forever. Rainford was predominately a village of farmers, why are you taking our land away from them? Rainford does not want or need this investment so why are you not listening to the residents? We have overwhelmingly voiced this opinion but you have ignored us! Asking our opinion was just a box ticking excercise. You had already made your minds up. You should feel ashamed at what you are doing!
By Anonymous
I think it’s a fantastic idea ,
By Glyn
Great idea we need more homes in areas that are not ideally developed already.
This is a far better idea then crowding new build into areas already crammed with housing
By Jay
If not already in hand, this development needs to be underpinned by enhancement of essential services such as energy, water/sewage, broadband, GP and Dentist surgeries plus school and shop capacity. Consideration must also be given to vehicle loading on the road infrastructure.
By Robert White