Appeal 6005268

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence suggests that the appeal has been made retrospectively. During my site visit, it was confirmed that the development under consideration appeared to be in general accordance with the plans submitted. I have therefore considered the appeal on a retrospective basis.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. It is also located within the setting of the Grade II Listed No. [address]. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 notes that in considering whether to grant planning permission, for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. I have had due regard to these duties within my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the development would prejudice the delivery of future development proposals within the appeal site; • the effect of the scheme upon the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the Grade II Listed No. [address]; • the effect of the scheme upon highway safety, congestion, accessible car parking, sustainable travel and climate change; and, • whether the surface water drainage of the development has been adequately addressed.

The appeal site previously accommodated a single-storey building that formed part of [address] Studios, together with a two-storey brick building used as a small youth training and counselling centre. Both structures have since been demolished. The evidence suggests that their removal formed part of an extant planning permission for the wider redevelopment of 33–[address].

Policy CC19 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022 (LP) is concerned with vacant sites and temporary uses. It notes that proposals for temporary uses will be supported, provided that it does not prejudice any future development proposals. Policy STP2 of the LP seeks to ensure the sustainable growth of Liverpool. Critically for this appeal, it seeks for development to make an effective use of land.

Crucially, the application seeks permission for a temporary two-year period. I am mindful of the time typically required to bring forward a redevelopment scheme, from initial conception through to delivery. From my review of the planning history, it does not appear that a temporary permission has previously been granted for this site, and I am therefore not persuaded that the current proposal represents a continuation of an earlier temporary use that might otherwise inhibit redevelopment.

A temporary car park would make effective use of the land pending implementation of the extant permission for the wider redevelopment, rather than leaving the site vacant. It would provide a functional and active interim use, and, once redevelopment is ready to proceed or the temporary period expires, the car park could be readily removed to allow the approved works to take place.

In conclusion, given the time typically required to assemble the necessary components to bring forward a redevelopment scheme, I am not persuaded that the granting of a temporary permission would prejudice the future development of the site. Instead, it would ensure that the land is put to an effective interim use during this period. Accordingly, the proposal would not conflict with Policies CC19 and STP2 of the LP.

[address]: Proposal for Designation as a Conservation Area report identifies the defining characteristics of the CA. It notes that the area, extending from [address] through to [address], contains a notable concentration of surviving 18th, 19th and 20th century commercial and domestic buildings. The prominence of many of these buildings provides an indication of the wealth and social history of Liverpool up to the 19th century. The report also highlights the presence of several listed warehouse buildings, which collectively trace the evolution of warehousing within the city. Accordingly, the significance of the CA is derived from the historic character of its tightly packed built form and its contribution to understanding the city’s commercial development, wealth and social history.

No. [address] is a [name] listed warehouse building constructed in the late 18th century for [name], a prominent Liverpool merchant. It is five storeys high, built of brown brick with a Welsh slate roof, and retains an elegant architectural quality despite its functional origins and subsequent alterations. In this context, I find that the building’s setting, so far as it relates to this appeal, was historically defined by its position within a tightly packed streetscape of industrial buildings grouped closely together, a relationship that persisted until the demolition of the structures formerly occupying the appeal site.

The removal of the former buildings, and their replacement with an open car park and its associated apparatus, has eroded the previously tight streetscape along this part of [address]. The site now presents as a wide and conspicuously open gap, occupied by contemporary and utilitarian features such as a metal cabin, low‐level boundary fencing and parked vehicles. These elements create a sense of incompleteness and openness that is uncharacteristic of the wider CA and detracts from the historic, enclosed setting of the [name] listed No. [address].

Given the above, I conclude that the development fails to preserve the setting of the listed building and the character or appearance of the CA. It results in less than substantial harm to both the setting of No. [address] and the significance of the CA. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy HD1 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that development conserves Liverpool’s historic environment. Consequently, I afford this harm considerable importance and weight in the heritage balance, to which I return later in this decision.

The appeal development provides a car park accommodating 23 spaces. It lies within a central area of Liverpool that benefits from access to a wide range of sustainable transport options. The Liverpool Parking Strategy 2025 seeks to prioritise sustainable modes of travel within the city centre and aims to reduce the overall level of parking provision within Liverpool.

The provision of additional car parking within the city centre is a key factor in encouraging increased vehicle movements into this highly accessible area. Inevitably, drawing more vehicles towards a single core destination would contribute to greater congestion, heighten the potential for highway‐safety conflicts, and reduce the proportion of trips made by sustainable modes. This, in turn, would lead to increased emissions as a result of the convenient pull of city‐centre parking. Whilst these are discussed in a general sense, such outcomes would run counter to the broad overarching aims of the direction of travel for transportation around Liverpool, as set out in the [name] 2025. This document seeks to prioritise sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private car use within the city centre.

The strategy does not aim to prevent car parking within Liverpool. Rather, it seeks to consolidate and relocate city‐centre parking so that land in the heart of the city is used more efficiently. Parking must be provided in appropriate locations and to a high standard. The Liverpool Parking Strategy 2025 assesses off‐street parking and identifies both positive and negative attributes. Many of the negative attributes apply directly to the appeal site, including its temporary nature, its position on prime city‐centre land, and its poor‐quality, surface‐level form. While the development would generally increase congestion, elevate the risk of highway‐safety conflicts, and reduce the share of trips made by sustainable modes in a broad sense, these impacts also reinforce its further inconsistency with the objectives of the [name] 2025. This would be the case whether the car park was permanent, or temporary, as proposed in this appeal.

It has been suggested that a condition could be imposed to restrict long-stay commuter use. However, I am not persuaded that such a condition would address the broader issue of the development attracting additional vehicle trips into the city centre. The associated impacts, namely increased congestion, pressure on highway safety and reduced uptake of sustainable transport modes, would arise irrespective of the duration of any stay. As such, a condition of this nature would not overcome the fundamental conflict identified.

Turning to the design of the car park itself, a plan was submitted at the application stage delineating the parking spaces within the appeal site. However, these spaces were not in place at the time of my site visit. Notwithstanding this, and having regard to the submitted plans, the two accessible parking spaces are positioned on either side of the site entrance. While the number of accessible spaces is adequate, neither space provides a full dedicated zone around it, that would allow a disabled driver or passenger to safely enter or exit a vehicle once parked. Consequently, the spaces would not be fully usable by individuals with disabilities who rely on appropriately designed parking facilities.

The appellant contends that this matter could be resolved through the imposition of a planning condition requiring the provision of appropriately designed and accessible parking spaces. However, I am required to determine the appeal based on the plans submitted. For the reasons set out above, the development does not incorporate a layout that would deliver any fully compliant accessible parking spaces.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with Policies CC19, UD4, TP1, TP5, TP6 and TP9 of the LP, as well as the guidance set out within the [name] 2025. Taken together, these policies and guidance require development to accord with the city centre parking strategy, to demonstrate inclusive design, and to support sustainable modes of transport, among other objectives. The proposal would therefore run counter to these aims of the LP.

Policy R3 of the LP notes that developers will be required to demonstrate through a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), at the planning application stage, that development proposals will not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. It further notes that development will be required to contribute to flood mitigation, compensation or protection measures where necessary, to manage flood risk caused by the development, amongst other things.

The appeal site is wholly covered by hardstanding. The application was submitted without an FRA or a drainage strategy. The appellant argues that this omission could be addressed through a planning condition requiring the submission of a surface‐water management plan prior to the commencement of use. However, Policy R3 of the LP is explicit that an FRA must be provided at the planning application stage. This requirement is fundamental to ensuring that development can properly assess and mitigate flood‐risk implications from the outset.

The appellant also refers to the suggested condition being a pre‐commencement condition. Yet during my site visit, the appeal site was clearly in active use as a car park. Several vehicles were present, and there was no barrier preventing access. In these circumstances, a pre‐commencement condition could not operate effectively, as the use has already commenced. Consequently, the absence of an FRA cannot be remedied through the mechanism proposed.

Therefore, the development conflicts with Policy R3 of the LP, the requirements relevant to this application have been previously explored, but also Policy R5 of the LP. Policy R5 requires development to not have an unacceptable adverse impact on drainage infrastructure and the water environment through additional surface water run-off, amongst other things. As the appeal is absent of an FRA, it fails to adequately address this matter.

The harm to the CA and the setting of the [name] listed No. [address] would be less than substantial, at the lower end of that scale, as set out in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework is clear that great weight should be afforded to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that such harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant argues that the development delivers public benefits, including maintaining the site’s appearance, security, and economic use. However, as set out earlier in this decision, its appearance is a specific factor contributing to harm to the heritage assets within the locality. It is also claimed that the proposal would support nearby businesses and visitors. There is no evidential basis for this assertion. While any car-park use in such a central location will inevitably facilitate the movement of people into an area where expenditure occurs, the site’s highly accessible setting means I am not persuaded that visitors would refrain from spending money locally in the absence of this particular car park. Accordingly, these considerations attract only limited weight in the overall planning balance.

It is suggested that the presence of a car park avoids dereliction and anti-social behaviour. It is also contended that it would enable time for the preparation and delivery of a redevelopment scheme. I have acknowledged these matters earlier in my decision. I ascribe moderate weight to these considerations in this appeal.

In this case, the identified public benefits, taken together, do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character or appearance of the CA or the setting of the [name] listed No. [address]. In the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and fails to preserve the setting of the listed building. Accordingly, the scheme conflicts with the approach to heritage assets set out in Section 16 of the Framework. As such, the Framework does not lend support to the proposal through the application of the public benefits to this heritage balance.

Furthermore, I consider that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. A decision should therefore be taken in accordance with the

The Council, through its officer report, identified the planning obligations it would have sought, including contributions towards tree planting and monitoring. The appellant argues that securing a tree‐planting contribution would be neither justified nor reasonable in the context of this proposal. This matter did not form part of the reasons for refusal. As the appeal is dismissed for other reasons, and as any conclusion on this point would not alter the overall outcome, I have not considered this matter further.

For the reasons given above and in taking all of the material considerations of the proposal into account, the appeal should be dismissed.