Appeal 6002375

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility.

The appeal property is located on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address] within a predominantly residential area. At ground floor it comprises a former public house, known as ‘The Saddle Inn’, with residential accommodation on the upper floors.

Policy SP5 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) (LP) seeks to protect existing community facilities that are valued by the local community. The supporting text of Policy SP5 explains that community facilities provide for, amongst other things, the wellbeing, social, recreational and cultural needs of the community. Neither the LP or paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides a closed or exhaustive list of facilities to be protected or supported. Therefore, whether an individual facility should be considered a community facility which is valued by the local community depends on the individual facts and circumstances of each case.

The appeal property is not a listed Asset of [name]. However, this is not the only criterion by which the value of a facility to a community can be measured. As a public house, albeit perhaps a conventional one, the appeal property would primarily meet the social and cultural needs of the local community, such as socialising with friends and family and holding private and community events. Whilst not strong opposition, there has nevertheless been some local objection to the proposal for reasons which include the contribution the public house makes to the area and its loss as a community facility. Therefore, as a matter of fact and degree, I find the appeal property to be a valued community facility.

LP Policy SP5 states that development that would lead to the loss of an existing community facility will only be permitted in certain circumstances. These are where: a) there is no demonstrable current or future need or demand for the space; and b) the premises are no longer suitable to continue in community use; or c) replacement provision is provided in an appropriate location.

The appeal property was operating as a public house at the time it was purchased by the appellant, who asserts that the previous owner had been running it with ‘limited profitability.’ The relocation of Everton football stadium in combination with other public houses in the wider area may also indicate that the business is no longer viable. However, only very limited information has been provided to support this. [name] appreciate obtaining the accounts of a previous operator or owner is problematic, there is no evidence before me relating to the profitability of the previous pub business, or indeed any suggestion that losses were incurred.

There is no specific requirement within LP Policy SP5 to provide marketing evidence, or the length of time a property should be marketed to ensure that there is no demonstrable current or future need or demand for the premises. Nevertheless, the appellant’s evidence includes a letter from an estate agent dated August 2025 stating that the Freehold interest of the property had been marketed since May 2024 via their website, an e-marketing campaign, social media and other industry websites and publications. This resulted in the sale of the property to the appellant in July 2025, and it has not been marketed since this time.

I have not been provided with any evidence that the original asking price of £315,000 reflected the market value for a public house. Moreover, although a ‘Leisure and [name],’ the property was marketed by a sole agent, and the appellant has not provided evidence of an alternative valuation(s). Despite this, the marketing evidently generated some enquiries, but it is unclear from the evidence whether any were for the continued use of the property as a public house, or whether all were speculative or related to non-pub uses, as asserted by the appellant. This particularly relates to Applicants 2, 4, 6 and 8. Furthermore, although a second letter has been included from a lettings agent which states there is no rental demand, it is unclear whether the public house has been offered to let by a trade specific agent.

Therefore, on the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that there is no demonstrable current or future need or demand for the space as a public house. I also have little substantive evidence that the condition or location of the appeal property would render it no longer suitable to continue in such a community use, such that criterion b) of LP Policy SP5 would be met.

The appellant’s ‘[name] shows the location of ‘[address]’ and ‘The Thomas Frost’ public houses which are to the east on [address] and within a reasonable walking distance of the appeal property. However, on this evidence, the loss of the [name] would leave the large, relatively dense residential area to the west of [address] without easy access to a public house. In contrast, I observed that several convenience stores already operate within a short walk of the appeal property, including along [address] and on the corner of [address] and [address]. These meet the day-to-day needs of the local community in respect of purchasing convenience goods. Consequently, I am not persuaded that the appeal proposal would simply replace one valued community facility with another, as asserted by the appellant.

Moreover, the proposal would not provide replacement provision in an appropriate location and accordingly criterion (c) of LP Policy SP5 has not been met.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed loss of a community facility would not be justified and the loss of the public house would harmfully reduce the ability for the local community to meet their social and cultural needs. It would conflict with LP Policy SP5 where it seeks to protect existing community facilities valued by the local community.

The appellant has referred to a scheme at [address], Anfield1 which involved the change of use from a public house to a convenience store. I do not disagree with the Inspector that the question of whether an individual facility should be considered a community facility of value is, to a considerable extent, a matter of fact and degree in each case. However, in contrast to the appeal proposal, there was not a single objection from local residents to the proposed loss of the public house in that case.

Unlike my findings above, the Inspector found the marketing in respect of the scheme at [address], Liverpool2 to be of a satisfactory standard, with a significant length of time dedicated to the search for an appropriate tenant or purchaser for the property to be used as a public house or other appropriate community facility. In the case to which I have been referred at [address], Liverpool,3 the Inspector found that the building had not provided a community facility for a ‘very long time.’ The same is not true of the appeal property.

Therefore, on the evidence before me, the examples provided by the appellant are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me, and they lend little support to it.

The Framework supports the development of under-utilised land and buildings, and the proposed convenience store would contribute to day-time activity and natural surveillance in the area. It would also potentially reduce noise and disturbance later into the evening, albeit I note it is proposed that the store would open until 23:00hrs. Although these are matters which weigh in favour of the proposal, they are not sufficient to alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The Council has raised no concern in respect of the impact of the proposal on highways, servicing, the living conditions of neighbours, or the character of the area, and no objections were raised by Highways or Environmental Health. However, these are matters which attract neutral weight.

Finally, I acknowledge that, since purchasing the property, the appellant has been approached by several residents and neighbours who have expressed strong support for a convenience store. However, this support must be tempered by the objections from other interested parties which are before me. 1 APP/Z4310/W/22/3300069 2 APP/Z4310/W/24/3349514 3 APP/Z4310/W/25/3372521

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.