Land was earmarked for 1,200 homes but could instead see mixed-use development

A huge area of land off the East Lancashire Road once earmarked for 1,000 new homes could now find itself offering around a fifth of those properties in a new employment-led scheme. Since 2014, Liverpool Council has owned Stonebridge Cross in Croxteth after acquiring it from Homes England.

In March 2021, plans were agreed to move a development plan forward with a view to building 1,200 homes on the site. A year later there were hopes an outline planning application could be submitted.

Now, four years on, the city council is preparing to take the site to market for a mixed-use development, with just 220 homes. It is thought this would take the form of a 70-30 split towards employment uses.

The 55-acre site is located on the East Lancashire Road (A580), one of the main thoroughfares into Liverpool. It was also one of two sites considered by Everton Football Club for its new stadium before settling on Bramley Moore Dock.

There had been hopes back in 2020 that work on the site to deliver new homes could have started within 12 to 18 months. Cabinet documents describe the site as “one of the city’s largest remaining development opportunities and is well placed to support new employment space, housing and wider regeneration benefits.”

Regarding the shift from a major housing development towards employment use, officials said the evidence base had changed since an assessment five years ago. In the report, which will go before councillors for a decision next Tuesday, it was said market testing and employment land evidence indicate “strong demand” for employment floorspace.

It added how an employment-led scheme would “allow the majority of the site to support modern employment development while enabling a residential element, indicatively around 220 homes, where this supports a comprehensive and well-designed scheme.” The site’s location, with access to the port, city centre and motorway network, makes it suitable for modern industrial, logistics and manufacturing uses.

The documents said: “The housing should provide an appropriate mix of tenures and property types, supporting both the diversification of the local housing market as well as delivering a substantial element of social and affordable housing to relieve affordability challenges in the city.”

The move away from a sole housing scheme is described as “more realistic and deliverable than seeking a single specialist use and gives the council the best opportunity to attract credible occupiers and deliver jobs for the local area.” Subject to cabinet approval, a specialist marketing agent will be appointed to promote the site and secure developer interest.

The council’s preferred approach is for an overall comprehensive approach to the site, however, it may accept bids from a singular offer based on the 70/30 split towards employment and housing.

To find all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your community, visit the Public Notices Portal.

Potentially dangerous baby products – including self-feeding devices, pillows and sleeping bags – are still being sold on online marketplaces in the UK, according to Which?.

The consumer group found 150 such products listed for sale by third parties on sites like Amazon, eBay and TikTok – despite having been subject to official safety warnings and product recalls.

Sue Davies, the head of consumer protection policy at Which?, said the investigation had shown “how easy it is to find these unsafe products” and urged the government to make marketplaces liable for the safety of items sold on their sites.

Most of the companies concerned said they have removed some of the products Which? had flagged.

The investigation looked at three types of products – sleeping bags, self-feeders and sleep pillows – that have been the subject of warnings from the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS).

It found unsafe products were listed on eight online marketplaces – Alibaba, AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, Etsy, TikTok, OnBuy and Wish.

Of the 150 unsafe products it found, more than a third were designed to feed a baby from a bottle with little or no assistance despite an “obvious” risk of choking, Which? said.

Thirty-three involved a long straw design and 21 were pillow bottle-holders designed to fasten around a baby’s neck.

These bottle-feeders were available on several platforms despite an OPSS alert from 2022 calling on businesses to remove such products.

The probe also found 59 sleeping bags with hoods or without armholes and 37 sleep pillows marketed for newborns, despite concerns about suffocation and overheating, as well as NHS safe sleep guidance.

OPSS also issued an alert for baby sleep pillows – some of which have been marketed with claims of improving night-time sleep – in December 2025.

Davies said: “The lives of babies are at risk because these platforms won’t stop dangerous products from reaching their customers – even though they are well aware that these products can be deadly.”

She added that the government “must urgently use the new powers it has under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act” to “impose a clear legal duty on online marketplaces for ensuring the safety of products sold through their third-party sellers, with tough enforcement for those that fall short”.

When shopping for baby products, Which? advises parents not to buy any self-feeding aid, and that babies under the age of one do not need a pillow to sleep at night.

It also says never to buy a baby sleeping bag with a hood or without armholes, or one with excess material or attachments, and to make sure to buy the right size sleeping bag.

The safest place for a baby to sleep is on a firm, flat mattress on their back in a clear cot with no toys inside, according to the baby sleep safety charity the Lullaby Trust.

Seven of the online marketplaces issued statements in response to the findings.

An Amazon spokesperson said it had removed the products highlighted by Which?, adding that it continuously monitored products being put on sale on its site and took swift action when alerted to potential issues.

“Parents trust Amazon because we take customers’ safety incredibly seriously, particularly when it comes to babies and infants,” they said.

Alibaba said it had removed any “non-compliant products” and that it would “continue to educate sellers, and take action against those who violate our terms of use”.

AliExpress said it “takes customer safety and product compliance extremely seriously”, that the relevant products had been removed from the UK market and that it will be making “necessary enhancements to our existing control measures” to ensure these products did not reappear.

EBay said it uses “technology, AI and expert teams” to keep unsafe items off its platform, that it had removed some of the items flagged and was carrying out wider checks to remove similar items.

An Etsy spokesperson said it had removed all the listings flagged by Which?, adding: “Keeping our users safe is paramount.”

TikTok said the products flagged by the investigation have been removed and that it had notified customers.

OnBuy said all relevant products had been removed and that it had been working closely with OPSS to ensure that unsafe and non-compliant products were removed from its marketplace as quickly as possible.

The BBC has contacted Wish and the Department for Business and Trade for comment.

A federal judge on Monday refused to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing United Airlines of charging passengers extra for “window seats” that lacked actual windows, allowing the case to move forward.

U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled the plaintiffs plausibly alleged United breached its contractual obligations by selling seats identified as window seats even though some were positioned next to solid cabin walls rather than windows.

“These terms plausibly establish that United expressly agreed to provide a seat with a window to passengers who paid for one,” Donato wrote, adding that United’s reservation screens and boarding passes represented that customers had purchased window seats. “No more is needed at this stage for the breach claims to go forward.”

UNITED FLIGHT RETURNS MIDAIR AFTER BLUETOOTH DEVICE NAME REPORTEDLY SPARKS SECURITY SCARE

The lawsuit alleges United knowingly charged passengers extra for certain window seats on aircraft even though some seats lacked adjacent windows because of aircraft design. (Boeing)

The lawsuit alleges United knowingly charged passengers extra for certain window seats on aircraft, including Boeing 737s, Boeing 757s and Airbus A321s, even though some seats lacked adjacent windows because of aircraft design. Plaintiffs claim passengers often pay premiums for window seats to enjoy the view or help alleviate anxiety, claustrophobia or motion sickness.

UNITED AIRLINES DROPS MERGER PURSUIT WITH AMERICAN, CEO KIRBY DETAILS WHY

United argued the lawsuit should be dismissed. (Ryan Murphy/Reuters)

United argued the lawsuit should be dismissed, saying “window seat” describes a seat’s location relative to the aisle rather than guaranteeing an actual window and contending federal law preempts the claims. Donato rejected those arguments at this stage of the litigation.

United declined to comment on the lawsuit.

“As part of our regular review of united.com and the United App to enhance the customer experience, in 2025 we added more detail to our seat selection process, so customers can have more information about what to expect when they choose a seat,” a United spokesperson told FOX Business.

UNITED AIRLINES RAISING TICKET PRICES UP TO 20% AS FUEL COSTS SURGE AMID IRAN WAR

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of passengers who paid extra for window seats but allegedly received seats without windows. The case will now move forward in federal court.