EACH time I go into the centre of Earlestown (or St Helens for that matter) I am really shocked at how run down these once prosperous towns have become. 


I have returned after a 20 year absence, so I notice the difference. 
Yes, money has been spent on pedestrian areas and other improvements, but so many shops and businesses are boarded up, or for sale.

Part of the reason for this decline must be that everyone shops in out-of-town shopping centres. 


And yet, the Local Plan suggests that the way to regenerate the centre is to build housing estates and warehousing on the far edges of the borough!  It doesn’t make sense!


They call us NIMBYs because we object to such an outdated view of town planning, but we have to live with the consequences when the developers have gone back to their mansions in off-shore tax havens. 


If developers are given the choice between developing a living centre of a town, or a greenfield site, they will choose the latter.

Just by suggesting that green belt is up for grabs, the Council is actually preventing a proper approach to regenerating the town.

And I don’t care whether the plan is for St Helens, Wigan, or Leamington Spa, the green belt should not be touched.

It is there to prevent urban sprawl.


If you want commuters, then build or convert some high-value housing right in the centre of St Helens or Earlestown. 


Wealthier occupants might then choose to spend with local shops and tradesmen, attracting back the big name stores which now have deserted us.


Lorna Lyst