Appeal 6002133

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for partial change of use of the ground and first floors of [site address] (retaining the existing printing business) into a sui generis mixed business centre (to include serviced offices, ‘hot desking’, meeting rooms and conference facilities) and community support facilities during the daytime (8am to 5pm Mondays to Fridays inclusive) and the use of the ground floor as a bar / community function venue during evenings (5pm to 11pm) and at weekends (9am to 11pm), with an associated terrace and alterations (to include the introduction of bi-folding doors) fronting onto [address], and the reconfiguration of the existing car park at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25F/1922, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of the proposed development differs from the application form to the decision notice. This change has been agreed by the appellant and so I have used the amended wording from the decision notice in my formal decision.

The appellant has confirmed that part of the scheme is already operational. At the site visit I saw a bar on the ground floor. However, the furniture within the serviced offices and business hot desking area did not resemble that shown on the plans. I cannot be certain that the mix of uses in operation at the time of my visit are the same as that sought under the application. I have therefore dealt with the appeal as a proposal, basing my decision on the plans submitted with the application and considered by the Council. In the event that the layout and use mix within the building differs from the development approved under this appeal, that is a matter for the Council.

The main issues are: • whether the site represents a suitable location for the proposed uses, having regard to the Council’s policies and strategies; and • whether there are other material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan should any policy conflict be identified in respect of the first issue.

The appeal site is an industrial unit in a prominent location on the corner of [address] and [address]. The surrounding area includes a combination of industrial uses, creative businesses, with some retail and food and drink offer.

This area is designated as a Primarily Industrial Area in the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (Local Plan). Local Plan Policy EC2 protects land in this area primarily for industrial and business uses (defined as [name](g), B2 and B8). Employment generating sui generis uses associated with industrial / business areas are supported, where they are appropriate to the location, are complementary and provide small-scale ancillary services to support local day-to-day needs.

The site also lies in the designated [name] area of the City Centre. Local Plan Policy CC13 supports uses which maximise the economic potential of the area together with ancillary uses focused on key frontages and streets in this location.

The plans show a large area for office and business hot desking (398m2), a meeting room, ancillary café and a terrace on the ground floor. The first floor would be a community and business hub, made up of 53m2 of business space and 112m2 conference and community space. The proposed day-time use would align with the policies highlighted above, as it would be employment focussed and provide facilities which could support local business needs. Policy CC13 makes specific reference to offices being supported.

The ground floor office and hot desking area would become a bar and seating area on evenings and weekends. Whilst it would not result in the loss of employment use, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the large floorspace proposed for leisure and food / drink would be an ancillary use, nor that it would be a service supporting day to day local business needs. Consequently, it would not meet Local Plan policy requirements in this respect.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policies EC2 and CC13 insofar as the proposal is not exclusively for employment use or ancillary uses.

The Ten Streets Strategic Regeneration Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) adopted 2018 is in the process of being updated, however, it remains current at this stage. The document is intended to support Local Plan policies and provides more prescription about the uses that might be appropriate. Like the policies, it seeks to ensure that the area remains employment focussed, in particular for creative businesses. However, it lists a broader range of acceptable uses, including the introduction of retail and leisure to this area. The guidance notes that ancillary commercial uses, including retail, food / drink, cultural, and leisure that encourage activity throughout the day and into the evening are supported. The proposal aligns with this vision, and this is a material consideration weighing in favour of a grant of permission, notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan I have identified above.

There are other material considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal. The established printing business would be retained. It would also result in an estimated 18 full-time equivalent jobs, which would be an increase from the previous use.

The SPD has assessed local buildings and categorised the appeal site as [name] (poor quality). The proposal would improve the external appearance of a key frontage. The occupancy of the building and the proposed mix of uses would also promote vibrancy in the area.

Moreover, the proposal would provide valuable community support facilities. The appellant reports that following community feedback, a programme of community led activities is provided. These include various community support groups and opportunities for training and business networking. The proposed facilities would include opportunities for local businesses to hold small events.

It seems to me that the different uses between daytime and evening would be complementary. They would represent a flexible use of the property and would make best use of the floorspace during hours that employment uses do not always operate. This is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which encourages multiple benefits from land, including through mixed use schemes. The existing employment use would not be displaced and overall, there is no firm evidence to persuade me that the proposal would undermine the Council’s regeneration objectives for the area.

The Council contends that the proposal would prejudice the long-term development of the area primarily for industrial uses and would impact current businesses. This is not substantiated by the evidence before me. The late night use with a focus on alcohol can be managed via planning conditions to control opening hours and noise. There are separate licensing requirements which would give the licensing authority additional controls over such uses.

The site is located in close proximity to [name] listed buildings [name], the Gate to [name], and the curtilage-listed dock wall. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving each of their settings. The historic role in the evolution of Liverpool’s dockland infrastructure and the architectural features of robust detailing, monumental scale and rhythmic fenestration patterns contribute to the significance of these listed buildings. The proposal includes improvements to the façade of the appeal building, which are in keeping with the architectural features of the area. On this basis, the physical alterations would preserve the settings of these listed buildings and it would not harm their heritage significance. I note that the Council had no concerns in this regard either.

The site is also located adjacent to the Stanley Dock Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is derived collectively from visually striking port related structures, including warehouses, dock walls, bridges and granite set surfaces. The façade improvements referred to above would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. The Council also had no concerns in this regard. The absence of harm is a neutral factor in the planning balance.

I have taken the above material considerations into account and have found that, taken in combination, they outweigh the conflict identified with the development plan in relation to whether the site represents a suitable location for the proposed uses. A grant of planning permission is therefore appropriate.

The Council has submitted a list of conditions, which I have considered. I have made some amendments to the wording, to improve precision and enforceability. For the reasons set out above I have dealt with the application as a proposal. Whilst the appellant has indicated that parts of the scheme are already operational, the change of use has not taken place in its entirety. Consequently, some of the conditions below specify particular requirements prior to occupation or first use. It will be for the parties to agree a reasonable timeframe for submission and implementation of the relevant details, where component uses in the overall sui generis development have commenced.

I have imposed the standard time condition for legislative purposes. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure certainty, I have included a condition to specify the approved drawings.

A condition specifying the operating times of the various uses has been imposed to reflect the hours sought under the application. Conditions requiring a Noise Management Plan and regarding management of outdoor areas are imposed to ensure any adverse impact of the proposal from noise and disturbance are avoided.

Submission of details of external finishes is necessary to ensure they are sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area. A condition is needed to secure this.

The appellant has questioned the need for highway improvement works. However, I agree with the Council that they are needed as a direct result of the development to ensure accessibility and the safety of users. This includes the widening of pavements and installation of lighting. I have attached a condition to secure these works.

To ensure suitable waste facilities are available and maintained, I have included a condition requiring a [name] and Management Plan.

A condition is included to ensure that there is adequate provision for parking cycles on the site and to establish measures to encourage non-car modes of transport. A condition is necessary to ensure adequate parking provision for electric vehicles on the site.

[name] has requested further information on how the development proposes to provide a safe and secure environment. However, this is not included in the Council’s list of conditions, and I have seen no evidence to demonstrate that it would meet the test of necessity, particularly as I have not been directed to a relevant development plan requirement.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: L01 A – Location Plan; L04 B – Proposed Site Plan; P03 G – Proposed Ground Floor Plan; P04 A – [name] and E09 A – [name].

The use of the premises shall only take place between the following hours: • Daytime Business Use (including open-plan office space, office pods, and community support facilities): 08:00 to 17:00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive. • Evening and weekend use (ground floor as bar / community function space and first floor for community-related activities): 17:00 to 23:00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive; 09:00 to 23:00 on Saturdays and Sundays. No activity shall take place outside these hours without a separate grant of planning permission.

The external works hereby permitted shall not commence until details of all external materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The sui generis mixed use hereby permitted (including the individual components of that mixed use) shall not commence until a Noise Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall include: • measures to control amplified music and customer noise, • arrangements for monitoring noise levels, • procedures for addressing complaints, and • details of any necessary acoustic mitigation measures. The approved Noise Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

The sui generis mixed use hereby permitted (including the individual components of that mixed use) shall not commence until a [name] and Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved waste storage facilities shall be provided prior to any of the uses commencing and they shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.

The sui generis mixed use hereby permitted (including the individual components of that mixed use) shall not commence until a scheme for the design and construction of highway improvement works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. For avoidance of doubt, the works shall include: i) Constructing a new 2.0m wide footway contiguous to the site boundary, between [address] and no.[address]. ii) Amending the existing carriageway markings at the junction of [address] with [address]. iii) Installing a vehicle access (associated with the car park) with drop kerbs and tactile paving on both sides. iv) Replacement/upgrade of street lighting necessary as part of the detailed design. v) Drainage works necessary to facilitate the highway works. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied / brought into use.

The sui generis mixed use hereby permitted (including the individual components of that mixed use) shall not commence until cycle parking has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall accord with the Council’s current cycle parking standards and it shall be thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

The sui generis mixed use hereby permitted (including the individual components of that mixed use) shall not commence until a scheme for the provision of electric vehicle charging has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

No outdoor seating, external drinking areas, or use of external space by customers shall take place unless expressly approved in writing by the local planning authority under a separate grant of planning permission. END OF CONDITIONS