​

Questions have been raised about why the Council has taken the decision to challenge, through the High Court, the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse development proposals at The Heath, Runcorn.

For the Council, this issue extends far beyond the decision on Heath Park.

It is a fundamental matter of safeguarding Halton’s long-term regeneration ambitions, with growth, housing, and regeneration forming the core elements needed to drive prosperity and meet the needs and aspirations of the borough and its communities.

We want to support local businesses to grow and attract more employers to Halton, creating new job opportunities. In turn, to support this growth and evolving lifestyles, more homes are needed. When suitable housing is in short supply, it limits choice and can drive up house prices, leading to affordability challenges.

Indeed, the Council has been set a target by Government to build 471 new homes per year and we must by law plan for the next 20 years, meaning land is needed for 9,420 new homes.

Halton is attractive to housebuilders, and we have had a good track record of successfully delivering housing, with over three hundred homes built each year in the last three years meeting previous Government targets.

The Council has also been successful in delivering major regeneration schemes including the Mersey Gateway and the current £32.5m Reconnecting Runcorn programme. 

We want this to continue to do this in the most sustainable way possible – building on brownfield sites (developed land, that is, or was previously, occupied by a permanent structure).

Residents have overwhelmingly supported this approach, rather than the alternative, which would be to use green field or Green Belt sites.

Because many brownfield sites are located close to industrial areas, and in Halton’s case, including high-hazard facilities, the Council has developed a robust, well-established, and independently examined risk policy to ensure that risks to public health are carefully and accurately assessed.

This approach takes into account:

  • The need to have appropriate separation distances between new developments and hazardous installations that give rise to off-site risks to public safety.
  • The need to appropriately manage populations living in close proximity to hazardous

Across Halton, there are already numerous properties situated near these high-hazard industrial sites, where the level of safety risk to householders is considered low.

The SOG Ltd planning application in 2024 sought permission for a ‘visionary’ urban-village style development scheme to include 545 homes, along with a hotel, extra care facilities, conference centre, shops, and offices.

SOG’s proposals were called in for decision by the Secretary of State over public safety concerns raised by the Health & Safety Executive, relating to the site’s proximity to the Runcorn Chemicals Complex.

The Council takes public safety extremely seriously but also takes a different view on how much low-level risk to public safety can reasonably be accepted and believes sometimes community needs outweigh low level safety risks.

In the past HSE objected to proposals for the Pavilions, the Heath School redevelopment and the new club house for Runcorn Rowing Club.

The Council challenges the findings underpinning the decision to refuse the Heath Park development.

It maintains that the HSE’s advice relied on information that was out of date – an issue it had already raised with HSE prior to the Inquiry, and which was acknowledged in the Planning Inspectorate’s decision.

The Council further contends that the Secretary of State was wrong to discredit its local plan policy on public safety and its evidential basis – which would have represented the best available evidence to the Inquiry.

The Council remains keen to work with HSE to find a way forward but will continue to robustly defend its risk‑based planning policy. Failure to do so would, in effect, concede the release of Green Belt land to meet future development needs. This would significantly limit regeneration opportunities for residents and communities, with resulting negative impacts on jobs, housing, skills, and economic growth.

Some are questioning whether taking this legal action is right thing to do – the Council believes that it is and is committed to continuing to challenge the current decision.