Appeal 6003680

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice, as this more accurately describes the proposal before me.

It was evident at the time of my visit that works have been undertaken at the appeal site in connection with an entertainment and hospitality use. For clarity, I have proceeded to determine the appeal based on the proposed plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • highway and public safety, • the activities/operations of neighbouring businesses, • the character and appearance of the host building and area, and whether it would preserve or enhance the setting of the Stanley Dock Conservation Area (CA) and of listed buildings; and, • the provision of a suitable and inclusive access.

The appeal property is a rectangular site accessed off [address]. It has been described as a former disused warehouse building, with other nearby buildings being in a variety of commercial uses. [address] [name] is situated off [address] to the west of the appeal site.

The area around the appeal site is a no-parking zone on match days, with no vehicular access permitted to the surrounding roads starting three hours prior to the start of a match at the nearby stadium. This would ensure that, during those periods, there is not likely to be conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

However, the hours of operation sought – from 09:00 to 23:30 would extend beyond those match day periods. The appellant has set out that either the appeal use or [name] would operate at any one time, but I have not been provided with any details of the referenced agreement between these two parties.

I was able to see that there is a partial footpath from [address] to the appeal building. Pedestrians would, however, have to cross [address] or walk along part of this street where there is no continuous footway to access the proposed use. This would give rise to conflict with heavy goods vehicles and other industrial traffic, which, given the large number of guests that are envisaged, would pose a significant risk to public safety.

Reference has been made to an agreed Management Plan, and to a measure of limiting access to only those customers who are in possession of a valid ticket for the match at the stadium. Whether or not this is a matter that is an enforceable condition on a [name], Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) requires conditions to be imposed on planning permissions only where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. In this instance, such a condition would be unreasonable, as it would significantly restrict the development sought, which, on the application form, seeks to operate between 09:00 and 23:30 Monday to Sunday. It is also not clear how such a condition would be enforced.

There is, furthermore, a lack of information on servicing details or in relation to public transport capacity to ensure that these aspects of the proposal are able to meet the respective demands arising from the proposed use.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway and public safety. As such, it would be contrary to Policies TP1, TP6, TP8 and CC13 of the Liverpool Local Plan (Local Plan) and Paragraph 116 of the Framework, which seek, amongst other matters, the safe movement of people, vehicles and goods.

The Framework at Paragraph 200 sets out that decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and that such businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Reference has also been made to Local Plan Policies EC4 and CC13 which seek to ensure that proposals should not adversely impact on the operation of existing businesses.

[name] have found in the preceding section, the proposed entertainment and hospitality use would introduce a use that would give rise to pedestrian flows that would conflict with vehicle movements such as heavy goods vehicles, vans and forklifts associated with the neighbouring timber business. Details of the legal agreement referenced by the appellant have not been provided and, given the proposed venue’s operating hours, and the likely overlap in timings with [name], it would unduly restrict the operation of this existing business.

[address] is a private road, it is utilised by the adjacent business. Although it has two access points, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the two uses could operate independently using separate entrances without interaction. Furthermore, no details have been provided to establish that there is adequate space to accommodate the loading/unloading and manoeuvring of heavy goods vehicles. In the absence of such information, the proposed arrangement has the potential to unduly constrain the operations of the neighbouring business.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the activities/operations of a neighbouring business and, as such, would conflict with Local Plan Policies EC4 and CC13 and Paragraph 200 of the Framework.

The appeal property is a disused warehouse building which is situated in an industrial and commercial area. The new [name] is a prominent structure, although the wider area retains a strong commercial character.

The proposal seeks to retain and bring back into use an existing building. It would, however, result in a number of new openings along the [address] elevation that would not reflect the rhythm and appearance of existing openings. It would also result in the bricking up of a number of existing openings. The appellant has referenced a number of changes that could be made to the submitted scheme, including retaining the existing roller shutter opening and reinstating a previously bricked up window opening. I am, however, required to determine the appeal before me on its own merits. The proposed fenestration alterations, along with the introduction of a vent pipe to the [address] elevation, and the felt roof finish proposed, would be harmful to the character of the host building and the area.

The appeal site is situated close to the [name] which is to its west, and whose significance derives from it covering the historic dockland area, which includes docks, warehouses and other associated maritime infrastructure. The proposal, due to the unsympathetic alterations to the [address] elevation which would be out of character with the industrial character of the building, would also be harmful to the setting of the CA.

A number of listed buildings are situated in the area. This includes, [address], a mid-19th Century warehouse that has been converted into artist’s studios and the [name], a long granite wall along [address] that formed the historic dock boundary and the [address]. Their historic significance reflects the docklands past as a centre of industrial activity. Given the relative position of these listed buildings in relation to the proposal, which are separated from the appeal site by roads and other areas of land, I do not consider that the proposed alterations to the fenestration and roof coverings would have a harmful effect on the setting of these listed buildings.

Nevertheless, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the setting of the [name]. Even so, great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The public benefits of the proposal are addressed in the Planning Balance section.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the area. As such, it would be contrary to Local Plan Policies HD1, UD1 and UD7, which seek, amongst other matters, for alterations to reflect the proportion, form, materials and character of the existing building.

The proposal seeks to provide full and free access to all parts of the site. This would include level access to the side fire escape door and suitable height and width bar and counters. A suitably worded condition to address these matters, and to the size and configuration of the accessible toilets, as well as the provision of a hearing loop would have been possible had the development been otherwise acceptable. They would not represent a material change to the proposal given these are mainly internal changes.

The stage would not, however, be accessible to wheelchair performers, and there is limited information on why the provision of a ramp would be unreasonable. Although a long ramp would be required, there is a large open area to the front of the stage that could accommodate such provision. I was also able to see a lack of a pedestrian footpath to the main entrance, which, would not provide safe and easy access for all potential users, particularly for those with restricted mobility.

I conclude on this issue that the development would not provide suitable and inclusive access. As such, it would be contrary to Local Plan Policy UD4, which seeks, amongst other matters, for development proposals to meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion so that all potential users, regardless of mental or physical ability, age or gender can use the development safely and easily.

The proposal would not give rise to any impact on ingress or egress from the stadium. This is, however, a neutral matter and not a consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal.

Reference is made to an appeal1 on a nearby site and, whilst noting its close proximity to this appeal scheme, that referenced development related to a proposal for a marquee to accommodate up to 1,000 people and therefore differed from this appeal scheme before me. The appellant has also referenced a number of premises that have been granted planning permission that are said to have times of operation that reflect this appeal proposal, but I have been provided with limited details of these premises. I can confirm that I have dealt with this appeal on its own merits.

The proposal is said would bring an investment of £200,000 and the creation of at least 40 jobs. It would however also impact on an existing neighbouring business, and I therefore attribute this economic benefit limited weight. 1 Ref: APP//Z4310/W/25/3374637

The appellant has referenced the lack of meaningful discussions, and other administrative matters relating to additional information not being requested and a delay in making a decision. These matters do not, however, have a bearing on the planning merits of this case.

A demolition notice has been referenced, but this was issued under separate Building Control legislation and has limited relevance to this appeal, which is to be determined on land use planning considerations.

The economic public benefits set out above would not outweigh the great weight given to the less than substantial harm to the setting of the [name]. The proposal would therefore conflict with Local Plan Policy HD1 and Section 16 of the Framework.

The proposal would also have a harmful effect on highway and public safety, on the activities/operations of a neighbouring business, the character and appearance of the host building and the area and would fail to provide suitable and inclusive access. As such, I do not consider that it would align with the Council’s aspirations for the area as set out in the Local Plan and the Ten Streets Spatial Regeneration Framework.

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.