Appeal 6005844

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to partially redevelop petrol filling station to provide new shop with external ATM, canopy, car park and associated works at [site address] , in accordance with the application Ref 25F/2013, without compliance with [name]. 1 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 22F/3487 (Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/W/23/3331925), dated 5 June 2024 and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached with this decision.

A previous appeal decision1 was allowed on appeal on 5 June 2024. This appeal disputed Condition 4 attached to planning permission Ref 19F/2570. Condition 4 of this permission imposed closure hours upon the host development. In allowing appeal APP/Z4310/W/23/3331925, the previous Inspector concluded that it would be reasonable and necessary to restrict operating hours following a trial period, to allow the actual noise levels to be recorded. This trial period has now been completed. The appellant applied to the Council under application reference 25F/2013 to remove Condition 1 imposed under APP/Z4310/W/23/3331925. This 1 APP/Z4310/W/23/3331925 appeal relates to the refusal given by the Council in 25F/2013. This would allow for the appeal site to be used for 24 hours per day, in perpetuity.

The main issue is whether [name] 1 is reasonable and necessary in the interest of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance and the perception of crime.

The appeal site is situated on a triangular parcel of land near Anfield, the home of [name]. Residential properties are located immediately adjacent to the site, along [address] and [site address] . The operation of a petrol filling station, incorporating a retail unit, external ATM, and associated car parking, on a 24-hour basis would be likely to result in increased activity at the site during late night and early morning hours. Potential sources of noise include vehicle doors opening and closing, vehicle manoeuvring and engine start-up, audio from car sound systems, the operation of fuel pumps, use of a tannoy system, and general customer activity within the site.

A Noise Assessment (prepared by enzygo environmental consultants, dated July

was submitted to accompany the application. This assessment analysed noise levels generated between 12am through to 6am. This assessment concluded that during these nighttime hours, there would be a low to adverse impact upon neighbouring residential receptors. The Council’s Environmental Health officer concluded that the impact of the proposed 24 hour operations on nearest noise-sensitive receptors would be low, and internal noise levels within bedrooms at night, with windows left partially open for ventilation, would be within recommended noise limits. I am therefore generally satisfied that the assessment undertaken is representative of the noise generally created by the appeal site during the early morning hours.

Nevertheless, my conclusions are also informed by my own observations during site visits. The appeal site was observed on two separate occasions. The first was during the late evening on a Saturday, and again during the early morning on a Thursday. The petrol filling station was open and fully operational during both visits. These observations took place on dates when no major events were occurring at [name] and therefore reflect typical day-to-day conditions at the appeal site and within the surrounding area. Whilst such observations inevitably represent only a snapshot in time, they nonetheless provide a useful indication of the baseline noise environment and the nature of activity likely to arise during the normal operating hours of the development.

During both visits, it was apparent that this city suburb location is a busy point of traffic transition between Anfield and the wider Liverpool city region. As such, vehicular traffic contributed to the generation of a background level of noise in an area that cannot be reasonably described as quiet. This background traffic level was lower, and therefore the overall ambient noise level, was reduced on the site visit undertaken on the 13 June 2026. This is due to the time of that particular visit at nighttime.

During these visits, I positioned myself outside of the nearest residential receptors. Customers were observed arriving at the site, using the petrol pumps, and then proceeding either into the shop or to the payment window to complete their transactions. The operation of the fuel pumps, customer payment activity, and the sounds associated with vehicles arriving and departing did not appear to give rise to significant levels of noise when experienced from the vicinity of these closest residential properties.

However, during the site visit undertaken on 13 June 2026, the tannoy system at the petrol filling station was used by an operative. Shortly thereafter, a customer arrived and was observed using a mobile phone on loudspeaker. When positioned outside No. 179 [site address] , these isolated incidents were perceptibly prominent in the context of the surrounding environment. It is important to note that these observations occurred during late evening hours, when ambient noise levels were relatively low. Consideration must therefore be given to the likely frequency of such occurrences. Across both site visits, these instances were not repeated, suggesting that such noise events are infrequent and unlikely to represent a consistent or prevailing source of disturbance.

Whilst this matter is not determinative of my overall conclusions, I note the absence of recorded noise complaints during the preceding one-year trial period. Furthermore, no specific concerns relating to noise were raised by neighbouring residents during the application process. This context lends support to the view that the operation of the petrol filling station does not ordinarily give rise to noise levels that are materially harmful or likely to result in regular disturbance to nearby residents.

I therefore conclude that Condition 1 is not necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The proposed change would comply with Policies H7 and R1 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. These policies indicate that development proposals should demonstrate that the impact of noise will not be significant, and business development will be granted where there will be no detrimental effect on the amenities of the residential area.

[name] have noted that the appeal site is located within a “high crime, high harm” location. As a petrol station with a reasonably sized shop, in a high-profile area such as Anfield, where large influxes of people are brought for major events, this location and use will attract crime.

In the Council’s officer report, it is suggested that levels of violent crime and anti-social behaviour in the locality are significant and of concern to residents. However, evidence from [name] indicates that reported crime within the [site address] local policing area has declined year-on-year since 2022. With specific regard to the appeal site, between June 2024 and September 2025, [name] recorded 56 incidents associated with the [site address] . The majority of these incidents related to fuel theft, with fewer than half involving theft from within the premises. The remaining offences comprised a limited number of assaults and public order incidents, alongside isolated occurrences of hate crime, attempted burglary, and robbery.

The presence of large crowds attending events at the nearby stadium is likely to be a contributing factor to the overall level of recorded incidents. Given the proximity of [name] to the appeal site, it is difficult to clearly distinguish between crime associated with stadium events and that arising from the operation of the service station itself. In the context of a suburban area located close to Liverpool city centre, which experiences high footfall and large gatherings associated with football matches and other events, the characterisation of the crime levels in the locality being described as “significant” appears to be overstated.

In continuing my assessment of the two principal categories of crime associated with the appeal site, both predominantly relate to theft. As such, these offences are primarily directed at the petrol filling station itself. As with many commercial operations, incidents of theft are not uncommon, particularly where the primary commodity, such as fuel, has a relatively high value. In considering the reasons for refusal, and with particular regard to noise impacts, such offences would not typically be expected to give rise to significant noise disturbance. It is reasonable to assume that individuals engaging in theft are likely to seek to avoid drawing attention to themselves, thereby minimising any noise generated. Furthermore, such incidents are not confined to any specific time of day and may occur at any time. This is particularly relevant given that the appeal site incorporates a night pay window, thereby restricting access to the shop area during overnight hours and reducing opportunities for certain types of crime within the premises.

Issues such as matchday parking, street trading, safety, and litter were raised in representations by a Ward [name] my site visits, it was observed that parking controls are in place, including signage restricting stays to 20 minutes and the use of a camera enforcement system. In respect of street trading, safety, and litter, I do not consider these matters to fall within the scope of the planning system, nor are they issues that the appeal proposal is capable of directly addressing.

As such, I am not of the view that the removal of Condition 1 would result in a development which would result in a harmful level of crime or a perception of crime. The proposed change would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, along with Policy UD2 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2022. Together, these policies require development to reduce the opportunity of crime and to ensure that crime and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life for those living within that location.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should repeat the relevant conditions from the original permission unless they have already been discharged. I also have the power to impose new conditions that I consider to be necessary. The conditions on the original planning permission have been considered in light of the advice contained in the PPG. Given the redeveloped service station is operational and some of the original conditions have been discharged, fewer conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above, I have removed the disputed condition, which restricted 24-hour use of the site to a 1-year period. Conditions restricting the use of the air machine [3], delivery times [4] and access to the internal area of the shop [5] are required to ensure the living conditions of neighbouring residents on [address] and [site address] are protected, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. The restriction on internal access to the shop element of the building, with service provided from an external pay window, is a key condition for reducing overall theft related crime and has therefore been retained. The car parking spaces within the appeal site have been laid out. Therefore, I have retained a condition which requires these spaces to be retained [2].

I note that a condition relating to design and construction of highway improvement works remains to be finalised. It appears that submissions are currently being evaluated. Nevertheless, as I am not in a position to understand if these details have been determined, I have retained a condition [1] which requires their submission.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition. I will also restate those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.

Within one calendar year of the date of this decision, a scheme for the design and construction of highway improvement works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details within 18 months of the date of this decision.

The area of car parking set out on drawing 120129-PLNG-04A shall remain laid out in accordance with the approved plans and retained at all times. The car parking shall not be used for any use other than in connection with the operation of the shop premises.

The air machine shall only be operational between 0600 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Sunday, including [name].

Deliveries to the site shall only occur between 0600 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Sunday, including [name].

Customers shall only have internal access to the shop between 0600 hours and 2300 hours Monday to Sunday, including [name]. Outside of these times they shall be served by the ‘pay at window’ system, specified in the [name] statement v1.0, October 2023.