West Lane decision under fire as residents back councillor’s damning criticism of Sefton Council

Concerns are escalating in Formby over the ongoing piling works at the West Lane development, with residents now backing a strongly worded intervention from Formby Parish Councillor Derek Baxter, who has accused Sefton Council of a serious failure in its decision making process.

The development is being built on the former Clarence House School site, a location well known within the community, with plans for around 89 new homes as part of the approved scheme.

A letter sent to nearby homes by developers Redrow, dated 12 May 2026, confirms that piling works are progressing further into the centre of the site. As part of the next phase, a larger piling rig is scheduled to begin operating from early June.

Letter sent out to residents

The company has warned that this is likely to result in a short term increase in noise levels. However, it states that all operations will be carried out in accordance with agreed noise and vibration limits and within control measures set out in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Redrow also says the introduction of the larger rig will accelerate the piling programme, reducing the overall duration of the works and allowing this phase of construction to be completed sooner.

Example of large Piling Rig - Stock Photo

Despite these assurances, concern among residents remains high, particularly those living closest to the site who are already experiencing disruption.

At the centre of the controversy is the type of piling method approved by Sefton Council.

Councillor Derek Baxter has issued a detailed and highly critical assessment of the process, arguing that the council failed to properly apply a key planning requirement known as “Best Practicable Means” — a legal test which requires developers to demonstrate that the chosen construction method is necessary and represents the least harmful option available.

He said: “This wasn’t a planning process, it was a collapse of scrutiny, competence and basic fairness. The council didn’t just get this wrong, they didn’t even try to get it right. The legal test required evidence, and that evidence was put forward clearly. It was simply ignored.”

According to Cllr Baxter, two independent geotechnical reports were submitted during the process, both based on the developer’s own ground investigation data and both reaching the same conclusion, that an alternative piling method known as CFA bored piling was entirely feasible.

This method is widely recognised as significantly quieter and less disruptive than driven piling, which is currently being used on site.

The reports challenged key aspects of the developer’s justification, including claims about weak peat conditions and problematic groundwater levels. Instead, they concluded that the ground conditions would allow for CFA piles to be safely installed into the dense sand layers beneath.

Cllr Baxter said: “This was not a minor technical disagreement. This was detailed, forensic evidence that dismantled the developer’s case. It showed the quieter method was possible, yet the council did not question it, did not test it and did not even acknowledge it in their decision.”

He also raised concerns that Sefton Council relied heavily on environmental health officers, whose role is limited to assessing noise and vibration impacts rather than determining whether a construction method is technically necessary.

“The people advising on this do not assess geotechnical feasibility, yet that is exactly what this decision depended on,” he said.

“You cannot reduce a legal requirement about the best method to a simple noise assessment. That is not proper planning.”

Further criticism has been directed at what has been described as a “fallback” position within the approval.

Under the agreed conditions, if the piling works cause significant disturbance, even while technically remaining within noise limits, the developer may be required to review and potentially change the piling method.

For many residents, this raises a fundamental concern that the approved method may not in fact be the most appropriate.

Cllr Baxter said: “The approval includes a built in admission that the chosen method may not be the right one. That should never happen. A condition designed to protect residents has effectively been turned into a safety net for a flawed decision.”

He also pointed out that the council has acknowledged it does not have its own geotechnical expertise and chose not to seek independent specialist advice, instead approving the plans “on the balance of probabilities”.

Meanwhile, the only independent technical evidence submitted, which directly challenged the developer’s position, was left unanswered.

Residents living near the site now face the prospect of increased disruption as the larger piling rig comes into operation in the coming weeks.

Many feel their concerns have not been properly considered and that a quieter alternative could have been used from the outset.

Cllr Baxter warned that the implications go beyond a single development: “If this is how decisions are being made, where independent evidence can be ignored and proper scrutiny avoided, then every community should be concerned. What has happened at West Lane is not just a bad decision, it is a warning.”

As work continues, residents are calling for greater transparency and accountability, and for their concerns to be properly recognised as the project moves forward.

The site is based at the former Clarence House School