Planning Statement Land at Woolton Road, Allerton, Liverpool, L18 9UZ
December 2019
Contents
Executive Summary i
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Location and Description 3
3. Relevant Planning History 4
4. Proposed Development 9
5. Planning Policy Context 14
6. Planning Appraisal 17
7. Summary and Conclusions 28
Appendix 1: Application Supporting Documents 30
Appendix 2: Outline Parameters Plan 33
Appendix 3: Approved Reserved Matters Consent Ref: 18RM/1427 Layout 35
Appendix 4: Relevant Planning Policy 37
Paul Forshaw [email protected] Client Redrow Homes NW Our reference REDM3034
19 Dec 2019
Executive Summary
1. This Planning Statement supports an application for the approval of alternative reserved matters in relation to the residential development of Redrow’s housing development at Land at Woolton Road, Allerton. It proposes a re-plan of Parcel A of the Land at Woolton Road site, increasing the number of dwellings on that part of the site from the 49 dwellings approved by reserved matters permission ref: 18RM/1427 to 68 dwellings.
2. There would be no changes to the previously approved development on Parcels B and C of the wider Land at Woolton Lane site, or the extensive areas of landscaping and public open space.
3. The principle of the proposed development and matters of access have already been confirmed to be acceptable through the grant of outline planning permission on appeal1.
4. The proposed development would comply with the parameters established at the outline stage, including:
• The number of dwellings proposed as part of this application, plus the number of dwellings previously approved on Parcels B and C, would not exceed the total number of dwellings permitted across the site at outline stage;
• Development would be restricted to the parcels identified on the Parameters Plan approved at outline stage;
• The number of dwellings proposed and the density of development would not exceed the maximum number of dwellings or the maximum density shown on the approved Parameters Plan for Parcel A;
• The height of built development would not exceed the maximum parameter height of 11.5 m;
• A 5 m buffer between built development and the retained trees on the site would be maintained;
• No changes would be made to the landscaping scheme approved under the previous reserved matters consent. As a result, the proposed landscaping would comply with the Landscape Masterplan approved under the outline consent;
• There would be no impact on the key “boulevard” view from Allerton Priory to the Mersey within Parcel B.
5. Whilst this application proposes an increase in the number of dwellings on Parcel A, only minor changes to the layout of development and the appearance of dwellings are proposed from that approved by the previous reserved matters consent. There would
1 Ref: APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010
i
not therefore be any significant differences between the matters approved through the previous reserved matters consent and the currently proposed development. In particular:
• the previously approved block layout is still proposed, containing a hierarchy of streets
• plot sizes would remain of a suitable scale, giving the site an open and spatial feel
• Whilst the orientation of dwellings on some areas of the site would be different to that previously approved, dwellings would still be orientated to face the street, creating natural surveillance. With the proposed layout there would be a greater level of natural surveillance of the areas of public open space and the character of the open space to the south of the application site as a linear park or “avenue” would be enhanced
• Dwellings would not encroach closer to surrounding dwellings than the previously approved layout, ensuring no greater impact on residential amenity
• The revised layout would have no greater visual impact than the previously approved development, as confirmed by the LVIA submitted with the application
• Whilst different house types are proposed, they would all be taken from Redrow’s “Heritage Collection” and of a similar appearance to the previously approved dwelling types and development Parcels B and C
• The appearance of the proposed development would still ensure that the “character areas” proposed in the outline permission and previous reserved matters consent would be delivered
• Boundary treatment would be similar to that previously approved and consistent with the approach taken across the site
• No changes are proposed to the approved landscaping scheme; in particular the tree belt on the wider Allerton Road site boundary would be retained and enhanced, as previously approved
6. The previous reserved matters consent confirmed that matters of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping would be acceptable and would not give rise to issues of heritage, ecological, landscape, visual, or amenity impact. As the proposed development only proposes minor changes to these matters, it would also be acceptable when assessed against policies in the UDP.
7. The application is accompanied by a LVIA update, Heritage Statement, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, a Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Appraisal and updated information on ecology. These documents further demonstrate that the proposed development would comply with policies in the UDP and the parameters of the outline planning permission.
ii
8. The proposed development would comply with the relevant policies in the UDP, and the application should be approved without delay in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Framework.
iii
1. Introduction
1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared by Turley on behalf of Redrow Homes NW (“the applicant” or “Redrow”) in support of an application for the approval of alternative reserved matters in relation to the residential development of Redrow’s housing development on Land at Woolton Road, Allerton.
1.2 The description of development is as follows:
“Application for alternative reserved matters following outline approval 16O/1191 relating to the residential development of land at Woolton Road, Allerton; comprising 68 no. dwellings with associated car parking, gardens, internal access roads, landscaping and public open space on Parcel A.”
Background
1.3 Outline planning permission was granted on appeal2 on 21 February 2018 for up to 160 dwellings, open space and access at Land at Woolton Road. Reserved matters consent pursuant to that outline, confirming details of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping, for 100 dwellings with associated car parking, gardens, internal access roads, landscaping and public open space was approved on 2 November 20183. Development has now commenced on the southern part of the site (Parcels B and C), but development has not yet commenced on the northern part of the site (Parcel A).
1.4 The proposed development seeks reserved matters consent for an amended layout of Parcel A consisting of 68 dwellings, increasing the number of dwellings on that parcel from the 49 previously approved under reserved matters consent 18RM/1427. No amendments are proposed to Parcels B or C, the vehicular access to the site or the areas of landscaping and public open space previously approved.
1.5 This Statement is intended to assist Liverpool City Council (“LCC”), as the local planning authority (“LPA”), and other stakeholders in understanding the application site, the proposed development and the prevailing planning policy context.
Application Documents
1.6 A list of the documents submitted in support of the reserved matters application is provided at Appendix 1. A review of relevant documents is provided within this Statement.
Structure of this Statement
1.7 The remaining sections of this Planning Statement are structured as follows:
• Section 2: Site Location and Description – provides a brief description of the application site and its location
2 Ref: APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010 3 Ref: 18RM/1427
1
• Section 3: Relevant Planning History – summarises the application site’s relevant planning history
• Section 4: Proposed Development – describes the proposed development for which reserved matters approval is sought
• Section 5: Planning Policy Context – confirms the relevant national and local planning policies and other material considerations against which the proposed development should be assessed
• Section 6: Planning Appraisal – Appraises the proposed development against the relevant planning policy framework
• Section 7: Summary and Conclusions – provides an overarching summary and concluding remarks
2
2. Site Location and Description
Site Location
2.1 The application site is located in the suburb of Allerton, approximately 7 km to the south east of Liverpool City Centre and 3 km to the north west of Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
2.2 The application site forms part of Redrow’s wider Land at Woolton Road site, which extends to approximately 13.5 ha. It is bordered to the north by the private driveway to Ye Priory Court; to the north east by Ye Priory Court and Allerton Priory, both of which are now in residential use; to the south east by The Orchard care home; to the south by Woolton Road; and to the west by Allerton Road.
2.3 Allerton Priory is a Grade II* Listed building and Priory Lodge is Grade II Listed.
2.4 The Land at Woolton Road site is enclosed by a boundary wall that originally defined the extent of the former grounds of Allerton Priory.
2.5 To the east of the Land at Woolton Road site, on the opposite side of Allerton Road, are residential dwellings, predominantly comprising two-storey semi-detached properties. To the north of the site, beyond the private driveway of Ye Priory Court is a bridleway and Allerton Park Golf Course. To the south, on the opposite side of Woolton Road is a public park, Clarke Gardens.
2.6 Housing development approved by the previous reserved matters consent (ref: 18RM/1427) is in the process of being constructed on the southern part of the site, within what is referred to as Parcels C and B. Two vehicular accesses have been constructed from Woolton Road, providing access into Parcels C and B, and a further access has been constructed from Allerton Road providing access into the current application site (Parcel A)
Site Description
2.7 The application site forms the northern part of the wider Land at Woolton Road site, known as Parcel A. It currently comprises a flat cleared site that is being used for the storage of materials and groundworks from the housing development currently under construction on the wider site.
2.8 It extends to approximately 3.45 ha in area. Mature tree belts are located on the application site boundaries to the north, east and west, with a temporary wooden fence currently forming the southern border and separating the land from the ongoing housing development to the south. This boundary treatment limits views into and out of the site.
2.9 Vehicular access to the site, approved under the outline permission has been constructed from Allerton Road.
3
3. Relevant Planning History
Outline Planning Permission
3.1 An application for outline planning permission for up to 160 dwellings and open space with all matters reserved except for access was submitted to LCC in May 2016 (ref: 16O/1191).
3.2 The application contained a Parameters Plan, a copy of which is enclosed at Appendix 2. The Parameters Plan identified three distinct development parcels on the site surrounded by extensive landscaping and areas of open space.
3.3 The application was refused on 10 January 2017.
3.4 An appeal4 against the refusal of outline planning application 16O/1191 was allowed, and outline planning permission granted, on 21 February 2018.
3.5 In allowing the appeal, the Inspector considered the main issues to be, inter alia:
• The effect of the proposals on the setting of Allerton Priory and the setting of the Priory Lodge
• The effect on the boundary wall
• The effect of the proposed development on ecology and biodiversity
• The effect of the proposed development of the Calderstones / Woolton Green Wedge
3.6 We highlight the Inspector’s findings in relation to these main issues below.
Effect on Listed Buildings • The site and the boundary wall form part of the setting of the listed Allerton Priory and Priory Lodge, but do not form part of the curtilage of the listed buildings.
• The housing to be developed on the site would be confined to 3 defined areas leaving the vegetated margins of the site undisturbed, saved for limited tree removal at the proposed accesses. An area of open grassland would be maintained to the south of Allerton Priory, as would the woodland running through the centre of the site and in its south east corner. Therefore, whilst the introduction of housing would change the character of the site, the historic structure of the agricultural landscape and its physical separation from surrounding roads and housing would remain legible, as would its association with the parkland of Allerton Priory.
• Some roofs of the proposed dwellings would be visible through the trees, particularly during the winter months, altering to some extent the outlook from
4 Ref: APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010
4
the upper levels of Allerton Priory. However, vegetation across the site would remain a prominent feature, even if some was removed. Importantly, far views to and across the Mersey would be retained and a sense of the mansions commanding position would be preserved.
• The Parameters Plan provides for a set back of the proposed housing from the garden boundary of Priory Lodge and intervening planting. The degree of separation would be sufficient to ensure no harmful visual coalescence with the new development and Priory Lodge would remain readily recognisable as the lodge to Allerton Priory.
• Impacts on the significance of Allerton Priory and Priory Lodge would therefore be less than substantial.
Effect on Boundary Wall • Only small parts of the boundary wall would be removed to create access into the site. Various parts of the wall are in a poor state. Therefore, whilst the development would result in the loss of some areas of the wall, the submitted Section 106 Agreement would assist in securing the wall’s long term future, preserving its heritage significance.
Effect on Ecology and Biodiversity • The site lies within an area identified as a potential Local Wildlife site.
• The proposed housing would be confined to the 3 areas defined on the Parameters Plan and a Landscape Management Plan would be secured by condition. Part of the existing scrub habitat would be retained and supplemented. The retained habitats and newly created habitats, corridors and green spaces could thereby be managed in perpetuity according to ecological principles consistent with the Merseyside Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
• The proposals would retain priority habitat woodland and vegetation around the periphery of the site. Housing would be off-set from the woodland by a minimum of 5 m and the buffer zone between the housing and woodland could be planted and managed for biodiversity.
• The open areas would be planted and managed to retain and promote the ecology of and biodiversity of the site in perpetuity. This was considered a substantial benefit of the proposal, and was given considerable weight by the Inspector.
Effect on the Calderstones and Woolton Green Wedge • The site does not form the full role of the Green Wedge as it is not available for recreational purposes.
• As a result of the housing being restricted to the areas shown on the Parameters Plan, and due to the retention and planting of boundary vegetation, the visual intrusion of the proposed development would be limited.
5
• The set back of housing from Allerton Road in particular would ensure that the development would be seen to have a spacious and verdant character that would distinguish it from the more dense development on the western side of the road.
Other Considerations 3.7 The Inspector also confirmed that as development would be confined to the developable areas on the Parameters Plan, houses would be a substantial distance from the surrounding dwellings, including Priory Lodge and Ye Priory Court. There would therefore be no unduly intrusive views to these dwellings and their private gardens. She also concluded that three access points were acceptable.
Approval and Conditions 3.8 In allowing the appeal the Inspector confirmed that the principle of up to 160 dwellings on the site would be acceptable, subject to the development being compliance with the Parameters Plan submitted with the outline application.
3.9 The appeal was allowed subject to a number of planning conditions. The following are of most relevance to this application:
• Applications for approval of reserved matters shall be made no later than 3 years from the date of the permission (i.e. by 21 February 2021) (condition 2)
• Development should be carried out in accordance with the plans approved at outline stage. This included the Parameters Plan (condition 5)
• Reserved matters applications shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the Landscape Management Plan approved in accordance with condition 21 of the outline approval and the Landscape Masterplan approved under the outline permission (condition 14)
• No development shall take place until a Landscape Management Plan, incorporating a habitat / ecological management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (condition 21)
• The reserved matters applications shall ensure that a 5 m buffer is maintained between the canopies of the existing trees on the site and any new built development, including private gardens (condition 22)
• Details submitted as part of reserved matters applications shall show all publically accessible open space within the development, and publicly accessible routes across and through the land. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall be no less in area than the land identified on the approved Parameters Plan (condition 33)
Reserved Matters Consent
3.10 A reserved matters application (ref: 18RM/1427) (hereafter referred to as “the previous reserved matters application” or “the previous reserved matters consent”) pursuant to the outline was submitted in May 2018 proposing 100 dwellings across
6
Parcels A to C of the site. Details of landscaping, appearance, layout and scale were submitted for approval.
3.11 That application proposed a mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom executive homes across the development comprising 49 dwellings on Parcel A, 32 on Parcel B and 19 on Parcel C.
3.12 The layout showed the three development parcels separated by extensive areas of public open space and protected tree belts. A large area of public open space was proposed towards the centre of the site. This would contain footpaths providing public access. In total, 6.64 ha of open space was proposed, significantly in excess of the policy requirements in the Unitary Development Plan.
3.13 The approved layout, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 3, showed dwellings informally arranged around the open space in order to create a soft, informal frontage, whilst still facing the street to provide natural surveillance.
3.14 Parcel B contained a “boulevard” forming a view corridor from the south of the site towards Allerton Priory. This responded to the important views over the Mersey from the Priory established at outline stage and shown on the Parameters Plan.
3.15 The reserved matters application proposed dwellings of various ridge heights and roof forms to create variation and interest. No dwellings would have roof heights greater than 11.5 m in order to comply with the parameters established at outline stage in response to the surrounding designated heritage assets.
3.16 A detailed Landscape Masterplan was submitted alongside the reserved matters application to demonstrate that the proposed landscaping would comply with the Landscape Management Plan approved at outline stage.
3.17 The proposed landscaping retained the existing woodland and enclosed character of the site, with the majority of existing trees being retained. In accordance with condition 22 of the outline permission, a 5 m buffer was shown between dwellings and the canopies of trees along the boundary of the site.
3.18 Additional boundary planting was shown on the landscape plans in the vicinity of Priory Lodge to provide additional screening.
3.19 The application was approved on 2 November 2018. The main points to note from the Planning Officer’s Report can be summarised as follows:
• The development proposed was within the developable areas on the Parameters Plan approved at outline stage and would not exceed the 11.5 m maximum height parameter.
• The proposed layout is set back from the boundaries of the site, providing a spacious feel and verdant character.
• While dwellings would be visible for various times of the year; the visual impact on existing dwellings and persons passing by the site were deemed to be acceptable by the Inspector at outline stage.
7
• The siting and orientation of dwellings would comply with LCC’s interface distances.
• The layout would ensure a development that is as open as possible to reflect the character of the site.
• There would be no impact on the amenities of surrounding dwellings (including Priory Lodge and Ye Priory Court) due to the distances between development on the site and these dwellings, which exceeded 55 m.
• Dwellings would be visible from the upper floors of Allerton Priory, but are heavily screened for much of the year and would be over 160 m away. Whilst visible from upper levels of the Priory and the access drive to Ye Priory Court, such impacts were considered acceptable at outline stage.
• The proposed landscaping details would deliver appropriate mitigation in ecological terms, as required by the Landscape Management Plan, albeit in a slightly different way than originally approved at outline stage. Hedgerow widths would be narrower (1.2 m compared to 2 m shown on the outline Landscape Management Plan). This is off-set however by longer lengths of native species rich hedgerow, maintaining the ecological mitigation aims and allowing better integration of development areas into the public open space.
• The issue of impact on listed buildings was considered acceptable at outline stage. The Inspector stated that there would be less than significant harm provided that development is confined to the identified development parcels on the Parameters Plan and was no higher than 11.5 m. The development proposed complied with this.
• Highways matters were considered at outline stage and the associated impacts of increased traffic from 160 dwellings was deemed to be acceptable.
3.20 In recommending approval of the reserved matters application, the planning officer’s report concludes that the submitted layout was in accordance with the parameters approved at outline stage. The housing design was also considered to be an appropriate response to its setting and impacts on nearby occupiers were found to be minimal. The Head of Planning was also satisfied that the ecological mitigation principles identified through the Landscape Management Plan at outline stage would be delivered through the detailed landscape details submitted with the reserved matters application.
8
4. Proposed Development
4.1 This application seeks approval of reserved matters of appearance, layout, landscaping and scale in relation to an alternative development of Parcel A of the Land at Woolton Road site.
4.2 In summary, the proposed development would increase the number of houses on Parcel A from the currently approved 49 dwellings under reserved matters permission ref: 18RM/1427 to 68 dwellings.
4.3 The increase in the number of dwellings proposed would require small alterations to the previously approved layout. No changes would be made to the approved layouts of Parcels B and C or the landscaped areas of the site outside of the development parcel from those details approved by reserved matters application ref: 18RM/1427.
4.4 Details of the matters for which approval is sought in this application, and a description of differences from those previously approved are provided below.
Scale
4.5 Reserved matters permission ref: 18RM/1427 granted consent for 100 dwellings across parcels A, B and C. This included 49 dwellings on parcel A.
4.6 The current application proposes to increase the number of dwellings on Parcel A from the previously approved 49 to 68 dwellings.
4.7 This proposed increase in the number of dwellings would result in 119 dwellings being constructed across the 3 parcels on the Land at Woolton Road site. The total number of dwellings across the site would not therefore exceed the 160 maximum established by the outline planning permission, and would remain under the maximum 70 dwellings for Parcel A shown on the approved Parameters Plan.
4.8 The scale of development, in terms of the number of dwellings proposed would therefore continue to comply with the parameters approved at outline stage.
4.9 The maximum dwelling density approved at outline stage, and shown on the Parameters Plan, for Parcel A was between 21 and 25 dwellings per hectare (dph). The density of the proposed development would remain lower than this maximum at 20 dph.
4.10 The scale of the proposed dwellings would remain similar to development approved by the previous reserved matters application, albeit there would be a greater number of smaller dwellings than previously approved.
4.11 Table 4.1 below provides a breakdown of the size and type of dwellings proposed.
9
Table 4.1: Proposed Housing Mix
House Type Internal Floor Dwelling Type Parking Arrangements No. of space (sq ft) Dwellings Oxford 1,318 4-bed detached Integral single garage 8 Oxford / LS 1,318 3-bed detached Integral single garage 8 Cambridge 1,394 4-bed detached Single garage 8 Leamington 1,417 3-bed detached Single garage 14 Canterbury LS 1,482 3-bed detached Double garage 5 Shaftsbury 1,427 4-bed detached Single garage 6 Harrogate 1,555 4-bed detached Double garage 5 Sunningdale 1,653 4-bed detached Integral double garage 6 Henley 1,769 4-bed detached Integral double garage 4 Richmond 2,042 4-bed detached Integral double garage 3 Harlech 1,312 4-bed detached Single garage 1 Total No. of Dwellings 68
4.12 As approved by the pervious reserved matters application, there would be variations in eaves and ridge heights, as well as roof forms. This would create interest and variety in the street scene. The height of dwellings would not exceed the maximum parameter of 11.5 m established at outline stage.
4.13 By complying with the parameters established at outline stage, the scale of the proposed development, and its density, would continue to reflect the character and scale of existing housing within the locality, as well as the constraints posed by the by the site’s proximity to designated heritage assets (including Allerton Priory and Priory Lodge).
Layout
4.14 The proposed development would not result in changes to the overall layout of the wider Land at Woolton Road site. The site would still comprise 3 development parcels separated by extensive areas of landscaping.
4.15 Only small scale changes to the layout of Parcel A from that previously approved are proposed. The density of development would be increased resulting from a reduction in the size of dwellings; consequently the developable area of the site would remain the same and no dwellings, gardens or areas of hardstanding would be located outside of the development parcel approved at outline stage and shown on the Parameters Plan.
10
4.16 The main differences between the current and previously proposed layout are:
• The number of dwellings would be higher across the southern boundary of the site, facing the public open space between Parcel A and B; along the two central east-west and north-south “primary streets”; and along the northern edge of the developable area.
• Dwellings in the south eastern corner of the site would be oriented to face the public open space to the south and would be accessed by a shared drive running along the southern edge of the site; whereas in the previously approved layout dwellings in this area were oriented to face either east or west and were either accessed of a “primary street” or a shared driveway on the site’s eastern boundary.
• Dwellings in the north eastern corner of the site would be orientated to face the north east and would be accessed from a shared drive along the periphery of the site. The previously approved layout showed dwellings oriented to the north and south in this location.
4.17 As with the previously approved layout, the site would be crossed by three roads: two on an east-west axis and one of a north-south axis. At the southern and central parts of the site, these roads would be “primary streets”. They would have a 5.5 m wide carriageway with 2 m wide footways to one or both sides. At the northern end of the site, the roads would be “Secondary streets”. These would have a reduced carriageway width of 4.8 m and would be shared surfaces with grass verges on both sides, and no footways.
4.18 Shared driveways are proposed on the periphery of the site to provide a “softer” boundary between the built up areas of the site and the areas of landscaping and public open space, creating a “country lane” character. These shared driveways would be 4.5 m in width and would contain a shared surface.
4.19 As with the previous layout, all dwellings would have private driveways, either accessed directly off a primary street, secondary street, or shared driveway. Where dwellings have garages, these would either be integral garages or detached garages set back from the main building line to avoid dominance of vehicles on the street scene. This approach would also enhance the low density of the development by providing visual gaps between dwellings.
4.20 The layout of the development has been designed to accommodate all typical service requirements of residential developments, including refuse collection vehicles. Bin storage would be located to the rear of dwellings, with access via a rear gate.
Appearance
4.21 The appearance of the proposed development would not be significantly different to that approved by reserved matters consent ref: RM18/1427. The layout would continue to incorporate a series of distinct character areas that focus on the landscape characteristics of the development. These character areas are explained in the Design and Access Statement that accompanies the application.
11
4.22 A range of 11 house types are proposed across the site. Whilst these would be different to those previously approved those currently being constructed on Parcels B and C, they would reflect the character and style of those dwellings. Features such as gables, bay windows and projecting building entrances would reflect the characteristics of the local surroundings and add further interest to elevations. Multi-paned windows to front elevations would reflect the window style of more traditional buildings within the local area.
4.23 The materials to be used in the construction of the proposed dwellings would also reflect those being used in the construction of the dwellings on parcels B and C. External materials would comprise a range of chalk white render, facing and feature bricks. The specific materials to be used are detailed in the Design and Access Statement and the Materials Layout Plan submitted in support of the reserved matters application.
Landscaping
4.24 Minimal changes are proposed to the Landscape Masterplan approved by the previous reserved matters application.
4.25 The majority of the landscaping and public open space areas of the site are located outside of the red line boundary of this application and there would be limited alterations to the approved landscaping.
4.26 A 5 m buffer will be maintained between the canopies of the existing trees on site and any new built development, gardens, roads and utilities. The existing woodland on the boundary of the site would be maintained and enhanced, as previously proposed. These were both identified as key landscape features through the outline appeal decision, with their retention identified as key to minimising visual impact of the proposed development and as an ecological benefit.
4.27 No changes are proposed to the quantum of public open space proposed across the wider site. As with the previous reserved matters permission, a total of 6.64 ha of public open space will be provided. The majority of this is located towards the east of the current application site and to the north of Parcel C, forming a focal point to the wider Land at Woolton Road development. The majority of this is located outside of the red line boundary of this application.
4.28 Internal landscape planting would, as with the previous reserved matters application, propose 1.2 m high hedgerow planting to define the boundaries of shared driveways.
4.29 Boundary treatment to dwelling plots would comprise 1.8 m high close boarded timber fencing, with brick walls to key and corner plots.
4.30 Proposed hard landscaping would be identical to that approved by the previous reserved matters application. Primary streets are to be finished with hot rolled asphalt (HRA) with red chipping. Secondary streets are to be finished with Tegula block paving in Pennant Grey and shared and private driveways would be finished with polymer modified bitumen (PMB).
12
4.31 Boundary treatments are detailed on the enclosed Landscape Masterplan and Boundary Treatment plan, and again reflect the boundary treatments approved by the previous reserved matters application.
13
5. Planning Policy Context
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) requires that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2 For the purposes of this application, the adopted development plan comprises:
• The saved policies of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (November 2002) (the “UDP”); and
• The Joint Merseyside and Halton Waste Local Plan (July 2013).
5.3 Other material considerations include:
• National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) (“the Framework)
• National Planning Practice Guidance (various dates) (the “NPPG”)
• Liverpool Local Plan Submission Draft (May 2018)
• Design for Access for All Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
5.4 A list of the relevant policies from these document is set out below and a summary of their requirements / key messages is provided in Appendix 4.
Development Plan
Saved Policies of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan 5.5 The application site is designated as Green Space and a Green Wedge on the UDP Proposals Map.
5.6 The following saved UDP Policies are considered relevant to these designations and the proposed development:
• Policy GEN2: Open Environment
• Policy GEN3: Heritage and Design in the Built Environment
• Policy GEN4: Housing
• Policy H5: New Residential Development
• Policy OE3: Green Wedge
• Policy OE5: Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Features
• Policy OE6: Development and Nature Conservation
• Policy OE7: Habitat Creation and Enhancement
14
• Policy OE11: Open Space
• Policy OE14: Open Space in New Residential Developments
• Policy HD5: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
• Policy HD18: General Design Requirements
• Policy HD22: Existing Trees and Landscaping
• Policy HD23: New Trees and Landscaping
• Policy T12 Car Parking Provision for New Developments
Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework 5.7 The following sections of the Framework are considered relevant to the proposed development:
• Section 2: Achieving Sustainable Development
• Section 4: Decision-making
• Section 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes
• Section 8: Promoting healthy and safe communities
• Section 9: Promoting sustainable transport
• Section 12: Achieving well-designed places
• Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
• Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
• Annex 1: Implementation
National Planning Practice Guidance 5.8 The NPPG provides guidance on the application of policies in the Framework.
Liverpool Local Plan Submission Version 5.9 The Liverpool Local Plan will, on adoption, replace the policies in the UDP. The Submission Version of the Local Plan was submitted for Examination in May 2018.
5.10 Paragraph 4 of the Framework states that local planning authorities may give weight to relevant polices in emerging plans according to:
• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given)
15
• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given)
• The degree of consistency with the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the Framework
5.11 There are outstanding general objections to the Liverpool Local Plan relating to its soundness and procedural aspects. However, there are a number of policies to which no specific objections have been submitted. Those which are of relevance to this application are listed below:
• Policy UD1: Local Character and Distinctiveness
• Policy H7: Primarily Residential Areas
• Policy GI7: New Planting and Design
• Policy GI8: Management and Existing Site Vegetation
• Policy UD5: New Buildings
5.12 The planning officer’s report for the previous reserved matters application (ref: 18RM/1427) confirms that the above policies do not attract full weight, but the Head of Planning considers that such policies can be given significant weight in the determination of applications.
16
6. Planning Appraisal
Principle of Development
6.1 The principle of the proposed development has been established through the grant of outline planning permission on the wider Land at Woolton Road site.
6.2 The outline permission established the principle of up to 160 dwellings on the wider site. Reserved matters consent ref: 18RM/1427 granted consent for of 51 dwellings across parcels B and C. The proposed development would deliver a further 68 dwellings on the application site (Parcel A), taking the total number of dwellings across the wider site to 119 dwellings. This would remain within the 160 dwelling maximum approved at outline stage.
6.3 The outline planning permission requires subsequent reserved matters applications to demonstrate that development on the site would be in accordance with the parameters established at the outline stage.
6.4 In particular, it requires development to take place in accordance with the approved Parameters Plan which shows 3 developable areas (Parcels) on the site, and established maximum numbers of dwellings and densities for these areas. The current application site relates to Parcel A. The proposed development would be entirely within the area shown as Parcel A on the Parameters Plan and is entirely in accordance with that plan and, therefore, the acceptable in principle.
6.5 The outline permission also requires that no development exceeds 11.5 m in height so as not to negatively impact on surrounding designated heritage assets.
6.6 Condition 21 of the outline permission also requires development to be constructed in accordance with the Landscape Masterplan approved at outline stage. As is demonstrated in the Landscape Plan that accompanies this application, which is summarised in the “Landscape” section of this Statement, this requirement would be complied with.
6.7 The remainder of this statement will therefore demonstrate that the proposed development would be within the parameters approved at outline stage, and as a result, the principle of the proposed development would be acceptable.
Access
6.8 Matters of access were considered at outline stage, both in terms of the access points to the site and the associated impacts of increased traffic from 160 dwellings on highway safety, and were deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Inspector.
6.9 The proposed development would result in a lower number of dwellings across the wider Land at Woolton Road site than was approved by the outline planning permission. As the outline planning permission confirmed that the highways impacts of 160 dwellings across the wider site would be acceptable, it follows that the highways
17
impacts of the fewer number of dwellings that would be delivered by the proposed development would also be acceptable.
6.10 The vehicular access into Parcel A from Allerton Road has now been constructed in accordance with the details approved at outline stage.
Design
6.11 The design of the proposed development would not be significantly dissimilar to the previously approved reserved matters consent. The principal changes relate to the increased number of dwellings, and therefore higher density of development; a general reduction in the size of dwellings; and some differences in orientation. Nevertheless, the overall layout of the application site, the scale and appearance of dwellings and the landscaping of the site would remain similar to that approved by reserved matters application ref: 18RM/1427.
6.12 It was confirmed through the grant of the previous reserved matters application that the design matters (scale, appearance, layout and landscaping) would be acceptable as they would comply with the parameters of the outline permission and the requirements of planning policy.
6.13 The changes that are now proposed are relatively minor and, as a consequence, a similar conclusion can be reached with the current proposals.
Scale 6.14 While the number of dwellings now proposed (68) would exceed the previous reserved matters approval, it remains less than the 70 dwelling maximum for Parcel A shown on the Parameters Plan approved under by the outline planning permission. The density of the proposed development, which would be approximately 20 dph would also remain under the maximum density of 21-25 dph for Parcel A shown on the Parameters Plan. By complying with the maximum density parameters established at outline stage, the development would retain the spatial character agreed at the outline stage, thus complying with the requirements of UDP Policy HD18.
6.15 Whilst the density of the proposed development would be increased from the previous reserved matters application, plot sizes would still remain generous and the massing of the proposed development would be relatively low, reflecting the overall open character of the development.
6.16 The height of the proposed dwellings would be similar to those approved under the previous reserved matters permission. Dwellings would be 2 storeys in height and would be significantly lower than the 11.5 m maximum height parameter established through the outline permission. It was confirmed during the outline appeal that dwellings below this maximum height parameter would not result in harm to the surrounding heritage assets or the general character of the area.
18
6.17 The officer’s report for reserved matters application ref: 18RM/1427 also confirms that dwellings similar in height and with a similar roof form and type to that now proposed would be acceptable:
“It is accepted that the dwellings would be visible for various times in the year however these impacts on existing dwellings and persons passing the site were deemed to be acceptable by the Planning Inspector in allowing the outline appeal, where this issue was debated at length. In relation to the roofscape, the proposed roofs will be pitched which is entirely in keeping with roofscapes in the vicinity of the application site, including within the Allerton Priory estate.”
6.18 Therefore, as with the previously approved reserved matters application, the scale of the proposed development would comply with the parameters set out at outline stage. It would also comply with UDP Policy HD18, which requires the scale of development to relate well to its locality and not detract from the City’s skyline, roof scape or local views.
Layout 6.19 A key consideration during the outline appeal was addressing the setting of the listed Allerton Priory. As referred to in Section 3 of this Statement, this resulted in the production and approval of a Parameters Plan.
6.20 The Parameters Plan identified 3 distinct development parcels, separated by tree belts and public open space. The detailed layout of the previous reserved matters application was designed to reflect the Parameters Plan to reduce the impact on the setting of the Listed Allerton Priory. Key features of that layout included:
• Development restricted to the development parcels identified on the Parameters Plan
• Retention of the woodland tree belt and buffer around the site perimeter
• The creation of a “boulevard” in Parcel B, protecting the key view from the Priory across to the Mersey
6.21 The revised layout now proposed in this reserved matters application would not alter these key parameters. All development, including gardens and areas of hardstanding, would remain within the development parcels shown on the Parameters Plan. No changes would be made to Parcels B or C, which are located outside of the red line of this application. There would not therefore be any impact on the “boulevard” within Parcel B, and the key view from the Priory to the Mersey would be retained. The tree buffer on the periphery of the site would continue to be retained, with this also being located outside of the red line boundary for this application.
6.22 The previously approved block layout is still proposed. This would comprise 2 central streets; one on a north-south axis and one on an east-west axis. These two streets would be “principle streets”, off which there would be “secondary streets” and shared driveways. A hierarchy of streets would therefore be provided, aiding legibility and movement.
19
6.23 Whilst the density of the site would be increased, plot and garden sizes would remain generous, enhancing the spatial feel of the site. Garages would be set back behind the building line within each individual plot, further enhancing the spaciousness of the street scene. Such an approach was supported in the previous reserved matters application.
6.24 As with the previously approved layout, dwellings would be orientated to face the street, providing natural surveillance and active frontages. As shown on the Additional Windows Layout Plan submitted with the application, those dwellings that are located on corner plots would have additional windows on their side elevations to ensure dual aspect and natural surveillance of both surrounding streets. Such approach was proposed in the previous reserved matters application and was welcomed by planning officers, with the planning officer’s report stating:
“The properties have …… been designed to be dual aspect where they are on corner plots to ensure street scenes have no dead frontages and actively engage with the street.”
6.25 The orientation of dwellings in the south eastern corner of the parcel would be altered from that approved by the previous reserved matters consent. Dwellings in this area would be re-orientated to face the linear open space between Parcels A and B. This would improve natural surveillance of the linear open space to the south, improving its welcoming nature and sense of safety.
6.26 By facing the linear space, these dwellings would replicate the orientation of dwellings in the south western corner of the site, which face the open space and did so in the layout of the previously approved layout. All dwellings bordering this open space (including those outside of the application site within Parcel B) would now face the linear open space. This would strengthen the linear character of the open space and better support its role as a green “avenue”, as set out in the Character Area description within the Design and Access Statement for the previous reserved matters application.
6.27 The benefits of dwellings fronting the open space to be provided on the wider site were acknowledged in the planning officer’s report for the previously reserved matters application:
“……… the layout has been designed to ensure that wherever possible, dwellings are outward facing into and across the newly created public open space to maximise public policing and to engage with the newly created public open space.”
6.28 On the eastern edge of the site, dwellings would also be re-orientated to face the adjacent public open space, with a shared driveway lying between the dwellings and the open space. The alteration would have benefits of improving natural surveillance of the open space and soften the edge of the development, providing a landscaped area of transition between the open space and the built development on the site.
6.29 On the northern part of the site the siting and orientation of dwellings differs to the layout previously approved. However, dwellings would remain a similar distance from surrounding properties, including Ye Priory Court, Allerton Priory and Priory Court and the separation would be well in excess of the council’s approved standards. Due to
20
boundary screening, which would be retained, and the distances involved, there would be no materially different impact on these surrounding residential properties. The proposed dwellings would not have an over-bearing nature and there would be no privacy or other amenity issues.
6.30 The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Additional Commentary document, which updates the LVIA submitted with the outline application and the previous reserved matters application. Those LVIA assessed the impact of the proposed development on views from Ye Priory Court, Allerton Priory and Priory Court and confirmed that any impacts would be localised and limited.
6.31 The LVIA Additional Commentary document submitted in support of this application has re-assessed these view for the revised layout and concludes that there would be no material change from the conclusions reached in the previous LVIA. As the localised and limited impact on these views was considered acceptable in the previous scheme and there would be no material change with the now proposed revised layout, the impact is also acceptable.
6.32 In light of the above, whilst the proposed development would result in some small scale changes to the layout of the proposed development from that approved by the previous reserved matters consent, these changes would not result in any negative impacts. Indeed, the changes proposed to the orientation of dwellings in the south eastern corner of the site in particular would result in benefits to natural surveillance and the character of the linear open space to the south.
6.33 The proposed layout clearly complies with the parameters established in the outline permission the requirements of UDP Policy HD18.
Appearance 6.34 Whilst different house types are proposed to those approved through the previous reserved matters consent, they would feature the same design features and materials as those previously approved.
6.35 As with the previously approved development, and the housing being constructed on Parcels B and C, the proposed materials have been carefully selected to create a mixed palette of materials, colours and textures to complement the existing local vernacular of the dwellings in the area surrounding the wider Land at Woolton Road site.
6.36 Section 12 of the Framework requires development to establish a strong sense of place. This was achieved in the previous reserved matters application through the creation of 4 distinct character areas across the wider site. The proposed development would continue to reflect the character areas established through the grant of the previous reserved matters consent.
6.37 The periphery of the site would reflect the “Garden Lanes” Character Area, providing a visual gradient between the housing development and the green buffer at the site boundaries. The area would reflect country lanes with informal shared driveways from which dwellings would be set back. Driveways would be boarded by native hedgerow planting to provide a green buffer and a soft, natural edge to the development.
21
6.38 The southern area of the site would comprise the “Linear Park” Character Area. The proposed re-orientation of the dwellings on the southern boundary of the application site to face the open space in between Parcels A and B would re-inforce the character of this area and enhance its formal “avenue” setting, which is a key feature of the Linear Park Character Area.
6.39 The alternative details clearly reflect the character areas and the vernacular of dwellings proposed on Parcels B and C. There would be a continuation of the character of the wider housing being development across the site and the development would relate well to its setting, creating a cohesive style that reflects the character of the wider area.
6.40 The scheme would therefore comply with the requirements of UDP Policy HD18, which requires development to include characteristics of local distinctiveness in design, as well as the requirements of Section 12 of the Framework.
Landscaping
6.41 A requirement of the outline consent is that any landscaping proposals accord with the principles set out in the Landscape Management Plan approved under the outline consent (condition 22 of the outline approval).
6.42 The previous reserved matters application contained detailed landscaping proposals. The main features of these landscape proposals were:
• The retention of the existing woodland tree belt on the boundaries of the wider Land at Woolton Road site, and supplementary planting.
• An increase in semi-natural broad-leaf woodland, neutral grassland, scrub and shrub habitats and native species rich hedgerow across the site.
• A 5 m buffer between built development (including gardens and areas of hardstanding) and the canopy of trees.
• An extensive amount of public open space, amounting to approximately 6.64 ha, substantially greater than the amount of open space required by UDP Policy OE14.
6.43 The tree belt on the sites boundary and the significant areas of public open space are located outside of the red line boundary of this application. The proposed development would not therefore alter any of the above features of the approved landscape scheme.
6.44 The tree belt on the boundary of the wider Land at Woolton Road site would continue to be retained and supplemented with additional planting, and as proposed at outline stage, would be managed in accordance with ecological principles. This was highlighted as a significant benefit in the outline appeal decision. The proposed 5 m buffer between built development and the canopy of trees is also retained as part of the revised proposals.
22
6.45 As confirmed in the outline appeal decision, the retention and enhancement of these landscape features and their ecological importance would contribute to the ecological quality of the Green Wedge within which the site is located, complying with UDP Policy OE3.
6.46 As well as having an environmental benefit, the retention and enhancement of the tree belt would also minimise visual impact of the proposed development, particularly for those dwellings bordering the site and would reinforce the parkland setting of the proposed development. This was confirmed in the outline appeal decision.
6.47 Within the red line boundary of this application, as with the previous reserved matters consent, 1.2 m wide native hedgerows would continue to be used as boundaries to the development parcel. Whilst this is a departure from the landscaping proposals approved at outline stage, which proposed 2 m wide native hedgerows, the use of hedgerows of reduced width was confirmed as acceptable through the grant of the previous reserved mattes consent. The officer’s report stated:
“The main change primarily relates to hedgerow widths however the reduction in widths from 2 m to 1.2 m is considered to have been offset by more extensive lengths of native species rich hedgerow and will not undermine the ability of birds and mammals to move through the site. The changes will maintain the ecological mitigation aims and will allow for a better integration of the development areas to the public open spaces so that they do not feel detached or oppressive when walking through them.”
6.48 The landscaping to individual dwelling plots would be amended slightly from that approved through the previous reserved matters consent in order to suit the new design and appearance of dwellings. However, the use of 1.2 m high native hedgerows to define the edges of shared driveways would be a continuation of the landscaping scheme approved through the previous reserved matters consent. This would create a more natural street scene and reflect the established character areas.
6.49 The proposed landscaping scheme would retain the key landscape features of importance established through the outline permission.
6.50 Since the landscape scheme for the previous reserved matters was confirmed to comply with the outline Landscape Masterplan and UDP Policies OE14, GEN3, HD5 and HD23, given that the current landscape proposals are not significantly different, a similar conclusion can be reached.
Impact on Residential Amenity
6.51 The officer’s report for the previous reserved matters application confirmed that the impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of existing and future residents is acceptable and would comply with the aims and objectives of Policy H5 of the UDP.
6.52 The officer’s report confirmed that, with the nearest dwelling being located over 55 m from Priory Lodge, the distance between them would be more than double that which would normally be expected in new development. Similarly, proposed dwellings would be over 40 m away from Ye Priory Court and would not impact on the amenity of its residents. Impacts on Allerton Priory were also confirmed to be acceptable, as
23
proposed dwellings would be over 140 m away and would be well-screened for most of the year by retained and enhanced boundary treatment.
6.53 Whilst this reserved matters application seeks consent for an amended layout, the proposed dwellings would not be any closer to Priory Lodge, Allerton Priory or Ye Priory Court than those approved in the previous reserved matters consent, and amenity impacts would remain acceptable.
6.54 The layout of the now proposed development ensures that privacy distances would be sufficient between proposed dwellings within the site. The orientation and design of dwellings ensures that there would be no windows that would overlook neighbouring plots
6.55 The proposed development would not therefore give rise to amenity impacts and would comply with the requirements of UDP Policy H5.
Impact on Setting of Listed Buildings
6.56 The impact of development on the wider Land at Woolton Road site on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings (Allerton Priory and Allerton Lodge) was considered extensively appeal Inspector. As confirmed in the officer’s report for the previous reserved matters application, the Planning Inspector was satisfied that provided development was confined to the development parcels identified on the Parameters Plan, was within the 11.5 m height parameter and the boundary tree belt was retained, then any impacts on nearby heritage assets would be less than substantial and would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development.
6.57 In respect of the impact on the setting of Allerton Priory, paragraph 16 of the outline appeal decision states is clear that, whist some of the roofs of proposed dwellings would be visible from Allerton Priory during the winter months, vegetation across the site would remain a prominent feature and would screen the majority of views.
6.58 In assessing the impact on Priory Lodge, paragraph 17 of the appeal decision confirmed that the set back of dwellings from the Lodge, as a result of development remaining within the defined development parcels on the Parameters Plan, would be sufficient to ensure no harmful visual coalescence and would ensure that Priory Lodge continues to be recognisable as the lodge to Allerton Priory.
6.59 The proposed built development would be entirely contained within the development parcels identified on the Parameters Plan and not exceed 11.5 m in height. By complying with those parameters the impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding designated heritage assets would be acceptable.
6.60 The Heritage Statement submitted with the application concludes that the proposed development would result in no greater harm to the designated heritage assets surrounding the site than the previously approved development. Therefore, as
24
confirmed by the Inspector in the outline appeal, the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm5.
6.61 In such circumstances paragraph 196 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the benefits of the proposed development.
6.62 Such a balancing exercise was undertaken at the outline stage6, with the Inspector concluding that the following benefits would outweigh the less than significant harm:
• Boosting housing supply in the area;
• The provision of larger dwellings, and in particular 3 or 4 bedrooms, to meet an long-standing need for larger family homes;
• The provision of open space that would be accessible to the public;
• The commitment by the applicant to maintain the historic boundary wall around the wider site.
6.63 The proposed development would continue to deliver these benefits and would therefore comply with the requirements of paragraph 196 of the Framework.
Ecology
6.64 As explained in the “Landscape” section of this Statement, the retention and enhancement of the tree belt on the perimeter of the wider site and its management for ecology would have significant ecology benefits, as confirmed in the outline appeal and previous reserved matters approval, and would comply with the requirements of UDP Policy OE3.
6.65 Condition 20 of the outline approval required the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This was to include a pre-commencement badger survey and a ground based assessment of trees for roosting bats. Such information was submitted as part of the previously approved reserved matters application
6.66 This application is accompanied by ecology comments from The Environmental Partnership (TEP). This confirms that an updated badger survey was undertaken on 4 December 2019 and no evidence of badgers was identified within or adjacent to the site. A ground based assessment of trees for roosting bats was also undertaken on 4 December 2019, and TEP ecology confirms that the design of the proposed development and associated construction works would have no direct impact on any trees identified with suitability for roosting bats.
6.67 Condition 17 of the outline approval required the submission of a plan indicating the location of bird and bat boxes on the site. The reserved matters application is accompanied by a Bird and Bat Box Plan, reflecting the revised proposed layout.
5 Paragraph 18 of outline appeal decision 6 Paragraph 74 of the outline appeal decision
25
6.68 The proposed development would therefore comply with the requirements of the outline permission in relation to ecology matters. The additional surveys undertaken, the retention of existing trees on the boundary of the site and the provision of bird and bat boxes would ensure that the proposed development would avoid harm to biodiversity and would provide an opportunity for ecological enhancements. It would therefore comply with the requirements of paragraph 175 of the Framework and UDP Policies OE5, OE6, OE7 and OE11.
Trees
6.69 The reserved matters application is supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement (AIA), prepared by Trevor Bridge Associates (TBA), which updates the pre-development tree survey undertaken in September 2014, updated in 2015 and 2016 submitted with the outline planning application.
6.70 The AIA confirms that, other than those trees which have already been removed to facilitate the creation of the access to the application site from Allerton Road (which has already been constructed), 2 sycamore trees of poor value and one mixed group of poor value would also be removed.
6.71 The removal of these trees was confirmed as being acceptable during the previous reserved matters application, with the officer’s report confirming:
“…… 6 trees need to be removed………… The trees are of low quality and the Tree Officer is satisfied that they can be satisfactorily mitigated against through the detailed landscaping proposals.”
6.72 The submitted AIA also includes details of tree protection measures that would be employed during the construction of the proposed development to ensure no impact on existing trees during construction work.
6.73 The proposed development would not have any additional implications for existing trees on the site than has been considered acceptable in the previous reserved matters application.
6.74 Additional tree planting is proposed as part of the landscaping proposals and is shown on the submitted landscaping plans.
6.75 The proposed development would therefore comply with the requirements of UDP Policies HD22, HD23, G17 and G18, and paragraph 175 of the Framework.
Ground Conditions
6.76 The application is supported by a copy of the Geo-environmental Appraisal Report submitted with the outline application.
6.77 This confirms that there are no ground conditions or contamination issues that would make the site unsuitable for residential development.
26
Flood Risk / Drainage
6.78 Matters of flood risk and drainage have been considered to be acceptable through the outline approval and previous reserved matters consent. The principles of a drainage solution, which includes a pumping station in the south western corner of the wider site, have been confirmed to be acceptable.
6.79 The proposed amended layout would not have any material different drainage or flood risk implications than those previously approved.
6.80 Details of a detailed drainage scheme will be submitted separately through an application to discharge Condition 15 of the outline permission, which requires the submission of detailed drainage design for each parcel.
Air Quality
6.81 The site is located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The impact of a residential development of up to 160 homes on the AQMA was dealt with at the outline stage. Paragraph 62 of the appeal decision confirms that, as a result of confirmation from the City Council’s Head of Environmental Health that a development of such scale would “not present a problem with regards to air quality”, the Inspector was satisfied that the development would not contribute to a worsening of air quality standards for those living in the vicinity of the site.
6.82 Given that the proposed development would remain within the total number of dwellings approved by the outline permission, the impact on the AQMA would remain acceptable and in accordance with UDP Policy EP11, which states that planning permission would not be granted for development which has the potential to create unacceptable air pollution.
Other Matters
Affordable Housing 6.83 The proposed development does not include any affordable housing. As confirmed in the officer’s report for the previous reserved matters application, there is no adopted policy requiring the provision of affordable housing. In the circumstances, there is no requirement for any of the proposed dwellings to be provided as affordable housing.
6.84 Whilst there is a draft affordable housing policy in the emerging Liverpool Local Plan, this is subject to objections and therefore can only be given very little weight in accordance with paragraph 48 of the Framework; and the lack of affordable housing within the development is not a reason for resisting the current proposals.
27
7. Summary and Conclusions
7.1 This Planning Statement supports an application for the approval of revised reserved matters in relation to the residential development of Redrow’s housing development at Land at Woolton Road, Allerton. It proposes a re-plan of Parcel A of the Land at Woolton Road site, increasing the number of dwellings on that part of the site from the 49 dwellings approved by reserved matters permission ref: 18RM/1427 to 68 dwellings
7.2 There would be no changes to the previously approved development on Parcels B and C of the wider Land at Woolton Lane site, or the extensive areas of landscaping and public open space.
7.3 The principle of the proposed development and matters of access have already been confirmed to be acceptable through the grant of outline planning permission on appeal7. The proposed development would comply with the parameters established at the outline stage.
7.4 The previous reserved matters consent confirmed that matters of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping would be acceptable and would not give rise to issues of heritage, ecological, landscape, visual, or amenity impact, complying with the relevant policies in the development plan.
7.5 Whilst this application proposes an increase in the number of dwellings on Parcel A, only minor changes to the layout of development and the appearance of dwellings from that previously approved are proposed. Those changes:
• Do not alter the previously approved (and constructed) access into the site
• Are entirely in accordance with the Parameters Plan approved at outline and have no materially different impact on visual amenity or setting of heritage assets
• Maintain significant separation distances between new and existing dwellings, thereby protecting residential amenity
• Propose a range and style of dwelling types to complement the wider development site and the character of the surrounding area
• Improve the orientation of dwellings and street scene to overlook areas of open space and provide natural surveillance
• Have no impact on the landscaping proposals for the wider site or protection of existing trees
• Include alternative landscaping proposals in accordance with the wider parameters for the site, including the provision of bat and bird boxes
7 Ref: APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010
28
7.6 The proposed development is acceptable in principle and complies with the requirements of the relevant design and development management policies in the UDP. In these circumstances, and in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Framework, the application should be approved without delay.
29
Appendix 1: Application Supporting Documents
Document / Drawing Title Document / Drawing Author Reference Covering Letter - Turley Location Plan 1158-02-02-202 Redrow Master Plan (Rev A) 1158-02-02-201A Redrow Planning Layout Plan 1158-02-02-201 Redrow Material Layout Plan 1158-02-02-206 Redrow Boundary Treatment Layout Plan 1158-02-02-208 Redrow Street Scene 1158-02-02-209 Redrow Hard Landscaping Layout Plan 1158-02-02-211 Redrow Additional Window House Type 1158-02-02-252 Redrow Plan Private and Adopted Areas 1158-02-02-254 Redrow Layout Plan Conservatory Location Layout 1158-02-02-CON Redrow Plan Landscape Masterplan D4729.007K TEP Detailed Planting Plans: TEP • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.048 Phase 3 Overall Plan • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.049 Phase 3 Area 1 • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.050 Phase 3 Area 2 • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.051 Phase 3 Area 3 • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.052 Phase 3 Area 4 • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.053 Phase 3 Area 5 • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.054 Phase 3 Area 6
Document / Drawing Title Document / Drawing Author Reference • Detailed Planting Plan – D4729.055 TEP Phase 3 Area 7 Boundary Treatment Plans: Redrow • 1100 mm Estate Railing 1158-SD820RVT Details • Free Standing Brick Wall F-SD0806 Details • Screen Fencing 1.8 m High F-SD0906 Standard Effect Details • Gate Within Screen Fence F-SD0910 Details • 1200 mm Oak Post Details REDNW-SD0827 External Works Plans: Redrow • External Works Plan Sheet 1 1158-02-ENG010-01 • External Works Plan Sheet 2 1158-02-ENG010-02 House Type Plans (floor plans and Redrow elevations): • Cambridge EF_CAMB_M4(2)-DM6 • Canterbury Lifestyle EF_CANTQ_M4(2)-DM6 • Harlech EF_HARL_M4(2)-DM1 • Harrogate EF_HARR_M4(2)-DM6 • Henley EF_HENL_M4(2)-DM5 • Leamington Lifestyle EF_LEAMX_M4(2)-DM1 Premium • Oxford Lifestyle EF_OXFO_M4(2)-DM2 • Oxford EF_OXFO_M4(2)-DM6 • Richmond EF_RICH_M4(2)-DM6 • Shaftesbury EF_SHAF_M4(2)-DM6 • Sunningdale EF_SUND_M4(2)-DM7 Garage Plans and Elevations: Redrow • Double Garage EF_GAR_DGD3 • Single Garage EF_GAR_SGS2 Design and Access Statement - Redrow Supporting Ecology Comments 5171.02.064 TEP
Document / Drawing Title Document / Drawing Author Reference Bird and Bat Box Plan D4729.026C TEP Heritage Statement REDM3034 Turley LIVA Commentary 4729.026 TEP Planning Statement REDM3034 Turley Geoenvironmental Appraisal C6069 Rev B Sirius Arboricultural Impact Assessment MG/4815/AIA&AMS/REV_M TBA and Method Statement /NOV19 Tree Protection Plans TBA • Sheet 1 4815.05 • Sheet 2 4815.06
Appendix 2: Outline Parameters Plan
Appendix 3: Approved Reserved Matters Consent Ref: 18RM/1427 Layout
Appendix 4: Relevant Planning Policy
A summary of the relevant planning policy and material considerations in the documents identified in Section 5 of this Statement is provided on a thematic basis below.
Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
Paragraph 11 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
This means that planning applications that accord with an up-to-date development plan will be granted without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, development should be granted planning permission unless:
• Policies within the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance (such as those relating to habitat sites, Green Belt, designated heritage assets and areas of flood risk8) provide a clear reason or refusing the development; or
• Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.
Application Site’s Designation
The UDP Proposals Map designate the application site as Green Space and a Green Wedge. The following policies relate to these designations.
UDP Policy GEN2 (Open Environment) states that the UDP seeks to protect and enhance a network of open space through the City, with emphasis placed on protecting the City’s strategic open land (including Green Wedges) from inappropriate development.
UDP Policy OE3 (Green Wedges) relates to the site’s Green Wedge designation. It states that LCC will protect and improve the open character, landscape, recreational and ecological quality of Green Wedges by:
• Not granting planning permission for proposals for new development that would affect the predominantly open character of the Green Wedge or reduce the physical separation between existing built up areas;
• Requiring that, where new built development is permitted, such development:
• Has regard to the openness of the Green Wedge and the purposes of including land within it;
• Is in accordance with the criteria in Policy HD18 and, in particular, uses materials and built forms sympathetic to the character of the area;
8 Footnote 6 of the Framework
• Retains existing vegetation and special site features where appropriate; and
• Provides and maintains a high standard of landscaping.
UDP Policy OE11 (Protection of Green Space) states that planning permission will not be granted for built development on part or all of any green space unless the proposed development can be accommodated without material harm to:
• The recreational function of the green space;
• The visual amenity of the green space in terms of:
• Important vistas into and across the site;
• Key frontages which are visible from a main road;
• Important trees and landscape feature, and the character of the site within the surrounding area, or its importance as open land in an otherwise closely developed area;
• Its relationship to adjoining green spaces, particularly whether the development might destroy a valuable link between areas of green space; and
• Any known nature conservation value as identified in Policy OE5.
The emerging Liverpool Local Plan proposes to retain the site’s Open Space and Green Wedge designations, but also proposes to designate the site as a Nature Improvement Area (NIA). Draft Policy GI6 (Liverpool City Region Nature Improvement Areas) states that development within the NIA should enable the functioning of the NIA and contribute to opportunities for habitat creation and management, as well as deliver biodiversity enhancement measures where the development may have a potential impact on the NIA.
Housing Development
UDP Policy H5 (New Residential Development) states that planning permission will be granted for new residential development which accords with the following criteria:
• The density, design and layout respects the character of the surrounding area, and maintains levels of privacy and amenity for existing and future residents;
• The highway and parking provision ensures a safe, attractive, convenient and nuisance free highway environment for pedestrian, cyclists and drivers;
Policy H5 states that new residential development will be expected to comply with the design criteria at Policy HD18 and the open space requirements of Policy OE14.
Paragraph 55 of the Framework sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.
Historic Environment
UDP Policy GEN3 (Heritage and Design in the Built Environment) seeks to protect and enhance the built environment by:
• Preserving and enhancing historically and architecturally important buildings and areas;
• Encouraging a high standard of design and landscaping in developments;
• Improving accessibility for people with mobility and sensory impairments; and
• Creating an attractive environment which is safe and secure both day and night.
UDP Policy HD5 (Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building) states planning permission will only be granted for development affecting the setting of a listed building, which preserves the setting and important views of the building. This includes where appropriate:
• Control over the design and siting of new development;
• Control over the use of adjacent land; and
• The preservation of trees and landscape features.
Policy HD5 only allows for development affecting the setting of a listed building where that setting would be preserved. This approach is not in conformity with paragraphs 195 and 196 of the Framework, which does all for development that would result in harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset in certain circumstances.
Paragraph 195 of the Framework states that where a proposed development would leads to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, planning permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm.
Paragraph 196 of the Framework states that where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development.
Due to the conflict with policies in the Framework, UDP Policy HD5 should be given reduced weight.
Paragraph 18a-018-20190723 of the NPPG acknowledges that whether a proposal results in substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision-maker; however, in general terms, substantial harm is a high test and may not arise in many cases.
Design
UDP Policy HD18 (General Design Requirements) sets out the design criteria that will be considered by LCC when assessing applications for planning permission. It criteria include, inter alia:
• The scale, density and massing of the proposed development relate well to its locality;
• The development includes characteristics of local distinctiveness in terms of design, layout and materials;
• The building lines and layout of the development relate to those of the locality;
• External boundary treatment and surface treatment is included as part of the development and is of a design and materials which relate well to its surroundings;
• The development has regard to and does not detract from the City’s skyline, roof scape and local views within the City;
• The satisfactory development or redevelopment of adjoining land is not prejudiced;
• There is no severe loss of amenity or privacy to adjacent residents;
• Adequate arrangements are made for the storage and collection of refuse within the curtilage of the site and the provision of litter bins where appropriate;
• Adequate arrangements are made for pedestrian and vehicular access and for car parking.
Section 12 of the Framework requires that planning decisions contribute to achieving good design and high quality places. Paragraph 127 requires development to:
• Function well and add to the overall quality of an area;
• Be visually attractive;
• Be sympathetic to local character and history;
• Establish a strong sense of place;
• Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space); and
• Create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible.
Paragraph 130 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan polices, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a reason to object to development.
Draft Policy UD1 (Local Character and Distinctiveness) of the Local Plan Submission Version requires development proposes to demonstrate that the following aspects have been taken into account:
• Local grain and pattern of development;
• Means and pattern of enclosure;
• Patterns of movement and street character;
• The form, scale, proportion, building line, frontages, plot sizes, storey and absolute heights, rooflines, skyline, roof scape and ratios of solid to void within buildings;
• Materials, colours, tones and textures, which should be appropriate to the character of the area;
• Relationship and response to topography and natural and built landscapes;
• The need to preserve, improve and create views into and out of development and also across it; and
• Designated and non-designated heritage assets.
Draft Policy UD5 (New Buildings) of the Local Plan Submission Version requires all new buildings to be designed to the highest design standards. It requires that proposes demonstrate that:
• The building has appropriate active frontages onto public realm which offer natural surveillance over external spaces;
• Private amenity is provided;
• Orientation and micro-climate, overlooking and interface issues have been considered;
• Impacts on views, vistas and setting of designated heritage assets have been considered;
• The materiality, tone and texture of the area is reflected in the design;
• The building “fits” with the architectural structure of the area; and
• Appropriate levels of car parking, cycle provision and servicing are provided.
Trees and Landscaping
UDP Policy HD22 (Existing Trees and Landscaping) sets out the criteria LCC will consider in order to protect and integrate trees and landscape features within new developments. These include:
• The retention of key ecological and natural site features, such as trees, hedges, walls and ponds;
• Layouts must provide adequate spacing between existing trees and buildings, taking into account the existing and potential size of trees and their impact both above and below ground level;
• Trees and woodland must be protected and managed during construction, preventing all site works within the branch spread of any retained tree.
Policy HD22 states that development will be refused planning permission where it causes unacceptable tree loss, or where it would not allow for the successful integration of existing trees identified for retention following a tree survey.
Paragraph 175 of the Framework encourages LPA to refuse planning permission for development that would result in the loss of aged or veteran trees unless the need for, and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
UDP Policy HD23 (New Trees and Landscaping) requires all new developments to make proper provision for the planting and successful growth of new trees and landscaping, including any replacement planting provided as compensation for the loss of any trees. In particular, new development should:
• Provide high quality landscaping and boundary treatment; and
• Promote nature conservation through the use of native species and the creation of wildlife habitats where appropriate.
UDP Policy OE14 (Open Space in New Residential Developments) sets out the criteria for the provision of open space within new development. It requires the provision of 50 sq m per dwelling on developments of over 25 family dwellings.
Draft Policy GI7 (New Planting and Design) of the Local Plan Submission Version states that all new development should make provision on site for the planning and successful growth of new trees and landscaping. It sets out criteria that should be considered in landscaping schemes.
Draft Policy GI8 (Management of Existing Site Vegetation) of the Local Plan Submission Version sets out the criteria that should be employed to ensure the protection of trees on development sites.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
UDP Policy OE5 (Protection of Nature Conservation Sites and Features) states that LCC will seek to protect the nature conservation interest of open land in the City by not permitting development which would inter alia:
• Have an adverse affect on legally protected wildlife species; or
• Destroy, fragment or adversely affect, indirectly or directly, sites with known conservation value in a neighbouring authority area.
Additional restrictions are placed on development that would impact locally, nationally and internationally designated sites.
Policy OE5 also states that in assessing the criteria listed in the policy, full account will be taken of proposed mitigation measures.
UDP Policy OE6 (Development and Nature Conservation) relates to circumstances where development is permitted on or adjacent to sites covered by Policy OE5. It states that in those circumstances LCC will seek to minimise potential damage by:
• Requiring developers to undertake a site investigation to identify the nature conservation interest of the site;
• Requiring developers to set out proposals for the protection and management of the nature conservation value of the site; and
• Considering the use of conditions and / or planning obligations to safeguard the nature conservation interest and / or provide compensatory measures for any nature conservation interest damaged or destroyed during the development process.
UDP Policy OE7 (Habitat Creation and Enhancement) states that LCC will seek to enhance the nature conservation interest of open land by inter alia:
• Supporting proposals for habitat creation and enhancement;
• Supporting proposals which strengthen and enhance wildlife corridors in the City;
• Encouraging developers to undertake landscaping in an ecologically sensitive manner.
Paragraph 175 of the Framework states that, when determining planning applications, LPA should apply a number of principles, including encouraging opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in an around developments and refusing permission for development that would result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless the need for, and benefits of, the development would outweigh the loss.
It states that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigate, or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.
Highways and Access
UDP Policy T12 (Car Parking Provision in New Developments) sets out LCC’s car parking criteria. It states that car parking requirements will be considered on the basis of:
• The nature and type of use;
• Whether off-site car parking would result in a danger to highway and pedestrian safety;
• Whether the locality in which the proposed development is located is served by public car parking facilities;
• Whether off-site parking would result in demonstrable harm to residential amenity; and
• The relative accessibility of the development site by public transport.
Paragraph 109 of the Framework confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts of development on the road network would be severe.
Pollution
UDP Policy EP11 (Pollution) states that planning permission will not be granted for development which has the potential to create unacceptable air, water, noise or other pollution or nuisance.
Turley Office 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD
T 0161 233 7676
GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 1
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 2
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 4
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC
GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 5
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 6
Appendix 2: Outline Parameters Plan
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15 7
Appendix 3: Approved Reserved Matters Consent Ref: 18RM/1427 Layout
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15a
Allerton Priory site - Parameters Plan (Turley drawing no. 3501 Revision 01)
Figure 15a
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 15b
Figure 15b
From the ‘Combined Draft Schedule of Main Modifications to the Liverpool Local Plan – 9.4.20’ (LCC02a)
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 16
Figure 16 Woolton Manor site from the planning application map
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC GI2 – Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge - Appendix 17a and 17b
Appendix 17a From the ‘Combined Draft Schedule of Main Modifications to the Liverpool Local Plan – 9.4.20’ – with added text.
Appendix 17b From the Draft Policies Map – with added text and shaded area indicating proposed exclusion from Otterspool Green Wedge.
LOGS CIC / APEA CIC
Appeal Decisions Inquiry opened on 3 October 2017 and was closed in writing on 7 December 2017 Site visits made on 4 October and 23 November 2017 by Olivia Spencer BA BSc DipArch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 February 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010 Land at Woolton Road, Allerton, Liverpool L18 9UZ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Redrow Homes North West and Allerton Priory LLP against the decision of Liverpool City Council. The application Ref 160/1191, dated 18 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 10 January 2017. The development proposed is erection of up to 160 no. dwellings and open space.
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487 Land at Allerton Road/Woolton Road, Woolton, Liverpool L25 7AY The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. The appeal is made by Mr Adam Galleymore, Redrow Homes North West against the decision of Liverpool City Council. The application Ref 16L/2392, dated 23 September 2016, was refused by notice dated 9 January 2017. The works proposed are described as “alterations to existing curtilage listed wall to create three points of access”.
Decisions
1. APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of up to 160 no. dwellings and open space at Land at Woolton Road, Allerton, Liverpool L18 9UZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 160/1191, dated 18 May 2016 subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule of Conditions.
2. APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
Listed building consent is not required for works to the boundary wall and I therefore take no further action in connection with this appeal.
Preliminary matters
3. The application for planning permission was in outline with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
4. Although the site addresses given for the two applications differ, they concern the same parcel of land.
5. The Inquiry sat from 3 to 13 October and on 21, 22 and 24 November. It was closed in writing on 7 December 2017 following receipt of the written closing submissions of the main parties.
6. The appellant submitted a section 106 unilateral undertaking to make contributions towards ecological mitigation works, tree replacement and maintenance, and to undertake an approved scheme of boundary wall works. I consider this further below.
7. A second edition of ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Note 3’ was published by Historic England on 22 December 2017. The revised guidance replaced The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Note 3 – 1st edition (2015) and Seeing the History in the View: A Method for assessing Heritage Significance within Views (English Heritage 2011), Core Documents 2.9 and 2.10. The 3 main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised guidance. I have taken the submitted comments into consideration.
Main Issues
8. The main issues are:
the effect of the proposals on the setting of Allerton Priory which is listed grade II*, and on the setting of the Lodge to Allerton Priory (Priory Lodge) which is listed grade II
the effect on the boundary wall
the effect of the proposed development on ecology and biodiversity
the effect of the proposed development on the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge
whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites
Reasons
Heritage Assets
9. Allerton Priory was designed by the notable Victorian architect Alfred Waterhouse in the gothic style. Historic England state that it is recognised as one of the best remaining examples of Waterhouse’s domestic work for the industrial elite. The interior is of further interest as it was fitted out by well- known craftsmen of the time including Gillow and Company. The house was built in the 1860s for John Grant Morris a prominent Liverpool industrialist and civic figure. The special interest and heritage significance of Allerton Priory lies in large part in the high quality of its architectural design and the craftsmanship of its fittings, and in its association with Waterhouse and Morris.
10. The Liverpool suburb of Allerton was developed during the 19th century with a number of mansions for wealthy merchants set in a then rural landscape. The evidence of Miss Gersten for Save Allerton Priory (SAP) indicates that Allerton Priory is the most intact of those remaining in south Liverpool. That it is a rare
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
surviving example of a ‘merchant prince’s palace’ adds to its heritage significance.
11. The Priory Lodge, also by Waterhouse, forms part of the overall design for the mansion marking the entrance from Allerton Road and denoting, in a manner derived from the country houses of the gentry, the high status of the dwelling and its owner. The building has architectural special interest as an example of work by Waterhouse and has significance also as part of the designed approach to Allerton Priory that includes the gateway and the curved driveway flanked by boulders and vegetation which provides a dramatic and carefully composed route to the house.
12. The existing Priory replaced an earlier house on the land, the extent and enclosure of which was already established. Historic maps indicate that significant design interventions into this landscape were limited to the creation of the house, formal garden, driveway and lodge. The fields beyond this to the south are described in Allerton Priory Liverpool A Landscape Conservation Plan: Jane Furse 2000 as ‘parkland’, but in more detailed analysis as various ‘paddocks’ that were in agricultural use. The 19th century maps show some additional tree planting in these wider grounds but there is no evidence of the creation of a formal, designed park.
13. The original occupiers of Allerton Priory would have had views over this land to the Mersey and beyond, and no doubt they will have walked the paths across and around the fields. In this respect and as the home farm, the land has been ‘shaped by its association with the dwelling’1 but Historic England do not consider it could be classed as a designated landscape, nor is there evidence that it formed an important or intimate part of the functioning of the house or lodge. Further it was confirmed at the Inquiry that Furse was incorrect in stating that the site is included in the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, and confirmed also that it lies more than 6 kilometres from the Liverpool World Heritage Site. There is no firm evidential basis therefore for the Council’s case that the estate has high aesthetic value as a piece of landscape design.
14. The extent of the formal gardens, the driveway with its designed margins and ancillary domestic buildings are defined by walls and structures. The fields and enclosing wall beyond were in the same ownership when the house was built and at the time of listing in 1966, but in my judgement they lie beyond the curtilage of the listed buildings. Nevertheless they remain legible as features of a high status Victorian dwelling modelled on a country estate. As such the land and wall form part of the setting of the listed house and Lodge that contributes to their heritage significance.
15. The appeal site excludes the Lodge grounds, the margins of the driveway and the formal gardens of the mansion. Whilst details of landscaping and layout are reserved matters they would be subject to agreed parameters with the result that the proposed houses would be confined to 3 defined areas leaving the vegetated margins of the site undisturbed save for limited tree removal at the proposed accesses. An area of open grassland south of the house and garden would be retained, as would areas of woodland running through the centre of the site and in the south-east corner. Whilst there can be no doubt that the introduction of housing into the fields would change the character and nature of the site, the historic structure of the agricultural landscape and its physical
1 Historic England pre-application consultation response 9 March 2016 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
separation from surrounding roads and housing would remain legible, as would its association with the parkland of Allerton Hall of which it historically formed a part and which now provides part of the context for the listed buildings. Further access would be provided onto and potentially across what is now private land enabling closer glimpsed public views of Allerton Priory through trees beyond the open grassed area.
16. From the mansion ground floor views are limited to the formal garden. From the upper storeys and roof, foreground views are dominated by the mature dense vegetation enclosing the gardens. Beyond this some roofs of the proposed houses would be visible through the trees particularly during the winter months, altering to some extent the outlook from these upper levels. However vegetation across the site would remain a prominent feature even if some was removed in accordance with the recommendations of Furse, and importantly far views to and across the Mersey would be retained. A sense of the mansion’s commanding position would thereby be preserved.
17. Ground levels in the north-west corner of the site are such that the proposed houses here would be visible from Allerton Road, seen beyond the garden of the Lodge. The parameters plan however provides for a set back of the housing from the garden boundary of the Lodge and intervening planting. The field to the rear of the Lodge would no longer have an agricultural character and appearance but the listed building would retain its immediate verdant setting and more importantly, its distinctive prominence on Allerton Road. The rectangular feature in its garden, now a pond but possibly it has been suggested originally a cattle wash, would be unaffected. The degree of separation from the proposed houses would be sufficient to ensure no harmful visual coalescence with the new development, and it would as now be readily recognisable as the lodge to a grand house and an integral part of the designed approach to Allerton Priory.
18. The appeal site forms part of the setting of Allerton Priory and Priory Lodge. The proposed development would introduce housing, road and domestic gardens into an agricultural landscape, changing its character. For the reasons given above however any adverse effect these changes would have on the contribution the site makes to the heritage significance of the listed buildings would be small. Whilst the proposals would thus fail to preserve the setting of the listed buildings contrary to Policy HD5 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2002, I conclude the harmful effect on the significance of the listed buildings would be less than substantial.
19. Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I address this below under the heading of the planning balance.
Boundary wall
20. The stone wall that formerly enclosed the Priory land and now two sides of the site, runs along Allerton Road and Woolton Road. At its northern end it joins the Lodge where sweeping curves define the entrance to the driveway. The wall at this point is joined to the Lodge and is distinguishable by its dressed stone and brick form from the simpler stone wall extending along the road edge. A pedestrian gate to the Lodge garden provides a break in the wall, and
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
a clear point of separation between the earlier and simpler boundary wall and the designed entrance wall attached to the Lodge. The portion of the wall north of this gate is listed by virtue of its affixation to the Lodge. For the reasons given above I do not consider the remaining wall falls within the curtilage of the listed buildings and it is not therefore a listed structure. It follows that listed building consent for works to this wall is not required.
21. The wall nevertheless has been identified as having heritage interest and I have considered it as a non-designated heritage asset.
22. The wall north of the Lodge garden gate lies outside the appeal site and would be unaffected by the proposal. One new access would be made in the boundary wall on Allerton Road and two on Woolton Road. The openings made would be sufficiently wide to provide for two way traffic together with footways to either side. The carriageway alone would be some 5.5m wide. However, whilst these would be sizeable breaches they would amount to the loss of only a very small part of the entire wall. Drivers and pedestrians moving along Allerton and Woolton Roads would pass considerable stretches of unbroken wall, and when passing the accesses would see the wall continue beyond it. Notwithstanding views of the road and houses beyond the boundary vegetation that would be provided to varying degrees by the accesses, the wall would remain legible as the historic enclosing wall of the grounds within and a marker of a high status residence. Its heritage significance would not therefore be unduly harmed and the contribution it makes to the significance of the listed building would be preserved.
23. A condition survey submitted by the appellant identifies various parts of the wall that are in a poor state and the Council has sought unsuccessfully to require the owner to repair it. The proposal would result in the loss of some of the fabric of the structure. On the other hand, the submitted s106 undertaking to carry out an approved scheme of repairs is a benefit of the proposal that would assist in securing the long term future of the wall as a whole. Balancing these two factors I consider the effect of the proposal on the fabric of the wall overall would be beneficial and that its heritage significance would be preserved.
Ecology and biodiversity
24. The appeal site is approximately 13.5 hectares and comprises principally areas of open grassland and mature trees. It lies within the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge (GW) were Local Plan Polices require that land management and development proposals retain and enhance features which contribute to the ecological quality of the GW. It is agreed in the Ecology Statement of Common Ground2 (ESoCG) between the appellant and the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) on behalf of the Council that modified neutral grassland covers approximately 9.26 hectares.
25. Historically the land has been farmed and in the 20th century much of it was used as playing fields. In recent years it has been left largely unmanaged. Prior to the appeal the grass and areas of woodland edge scrub were cut.
26. The Council’s reason for refusal on ecology refers to a lack of information. It was agreed at the Inquiry by all 3 main parties that whilst more information
2 Core document 6.2 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
might be desirable, there was sufficient evidence now before me to enable a judgement to be made as to the effect of the proposal on ecology and biodiversity. This includes an invertebrate survey conducted in 2017, site bird surveys of 2015 and 2017 as well as records gathered from the Merseyside Biobank and tetrad level records provided by the Lancashire County Bird Recorder. I have also taken into account birds recorded by local residents.
27. The site lies within an area identified as potential Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and it is agreed that it meets two criteria for LWS designation, B5(a) Breeding Bird Assemblage and Bf2 Breeding Butterfly Assemblage. Of the total of 37 bird species recorded across two survey years, 34 regularly use woodland/woodland edge habitats and 21 regularly use grassland habitats. Similarly, of the approximately 178 species of invertebrates recorded the majority are associated with woodland and woodland edge habitats. However, whilst this illustrates the importance of the woodland and woodland edge, it does not present a picture of differing self-contained habitats. Some species use a number of habitats throughout their life cycle and the land currently provides a mosaic of habitats that together support the ecosystems and biodiversity of the site.
28. The proposed housing would be confined to the 3 areas defined on the parameters plan and a Landscape Management Plan would be secured by condition. The existing mature woodland would be retained and additional trees planted (albeit with some tree loss at the proposed accesses). Part of the existing scrub and shrub habitat would be retained and supplemented and a new hedgerow planted and managed. Retained and newly seeded grassland would be managed for ecological diversity. It is agreed that retained habitats and newly created habitats, corridors and green spaces could thereby be managed in perpetuity according to ecological principles consistent with the objectives of the Liverpool City Region Ecological Network and the North Merseyside Local Biodiversity Action Plan. The submitted s106 unilateral undertaking also provides for a contribution towards off-site habitat mitigation, although it is the appellant’s case that such mitigation is not necessary.
29. The development would lead to a reduction in the area of modified neutral grassland from some 9.2ha to approximately 1.9ha. Urban grassland is recorded as a locally important habitat under the North Merseyside Biodiversity Action Plan 2006. It is the effect of this loss, together with the likely scale and nature of disruption to the woodland habitat from the housing and site accesses on the biodiversity of the site and its role in a network of local sites which is the main area of contention between the parties.
30. Whilst there is no record of the distribution of invertebrate species across the site the grassland to be retained would include the area identified as that where species diversity is greatest and the woodland edge where the majority of breeding bird and invertebrates which contribute to meeting LWS criteria were recorded. Further the provision of tall grasses to provide a food source for butterflies, including the grassland specialists such as common blue, small copper and small and large skipper, could be secured as part of the agreed Landscape Management Plan for the site. The parameters plan allows for substantial areas of grassland to be retained where wind disturbance could be minimised, and a Construction Environmental Management Plan could ensure that retained grassland is protected during construction.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
31. Birds of prey have been observed foraging on the appeal site. The smaller retained area of grassland would be suitable for kestrels which are known to make use of sometimes very narrow strips of land such as motorway central reservations but would be insufficient to provide a hunting ground for barn owls. Evidence was provided which indicated that barn owls have nested on the site in the past, however it is agreed that the nearest recorded barn owl nest currently is some 600m south of the site. The development would have no effect on this or other barn owl nests in the wider area for which protection is afforded under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
32. Further whilst the appeal site is currently the largest single area of neutral grassland in the GW, within a 2km radius of the site there are numerous and extensive areas of land currently designated as LWS or proposed LWS3. No substantive evidence has been put forward to support the assertion that the extent of grassland currently available on the site is critical to sustaining a breeding population of barn owls in the area or that these other sites together with the retained and enhanced habitats on the appeal site would be insufficient to provide foraging opportunities for the other birds of prey observed - kestrel, buzzard, sparrowhawk and tawney owl. In considering the impact of the reduced quantity of grassland on the site I am conscious also that none of these are s.41 protected species.
33. The ESoCG notes that bird surveys undertaken in 2015 and 2017 recorded a total of 44 species of which 14 were confirmed breeding. Of the 44 species 6 are s.41 listed species (also on either Red or Amber Birds of Conservation Concern lists) but only two of these species, song thrush and dunnock were confirmed breeding and 3 species as possibly breeding - starling, house sparrow and cuckoo. Appendix C to Mr Hesketh’s evidence sets out the habitat requirements of each of these species and the provision for this within the proposed scheme. In particular reference is made to management, enhancement and extension of the woodland, new woodland edge planting, the proposed hedgerow and the management, wildflower seeding and grassland habitat creation. No detailed criticism of this analysis was made by the Council or SAP.
34. The Council accepts that the proposal with the Landscape Management Plan would provide new habitats for existing and new species, and the Council’s witness in cross-examination agreed that in these circumstances the site could retain the potential to qualify as a LWS.
35. The proposals would essentially retain the s.41 priority habitat woodland and vegetation around the periphery of the site but require the felling of some trees to form two of the three proposed access points. Whilst this would interrupt the continuity of vegetation at the site edge, the suggested landscaping measures would include replacement and new trees, together with woodland understorey and woodland edge planting that would enhance the woodland and woodland edge habitat, and the proposed hedgerow and planting would provide internal links through the site. Housing would be off-set from the woodland by a minimum of 5m and the buffer zone between the housing and woodland could be planted and managed for biodiversity and to minimise human and pet access. A buffer zone is recommended in the Woodland Trust document Impacts of nearby development on the ecology of ancient woodland4 as are
3 ESoCG appendix F 4 Doc 9 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
measures to deal with invasive species. These have been proposed and could be secured by means of planning conditions and a Landscape Management Plan.
36. Whilst the quantum of grassland on the site would be reduced and a small number of trees lost, I consider the ecological and landscape management proposals would be sufficient to mitigate the resulting limited harm to the ecological value of the site as a whole. A mosaic of habitats would be retained to support diverse assemblages of birds and butterflies and the proposal would result in no significant harm to statutorily protected habitats or species. It follows therefore that that the development would not adversely disrupt or fragment the ecological networks of the GW.
37. The protection that can be afforded to the ecology of the site is at present limited. That the open areas would be planted and managed to retain and promote the ecology and biodiversity of the site in perpetuity is a substantial benefit of the proposal to which I give considerable weight. Taking into account the proposed landscape and ecological measures, which I am satisfied can be secured by condition, I conclude that the proposed development would not result in significant harm to the ecology and biodiversity of the site and indeed has the potential in the longer term to enrich it. I find no conflict in this respect therefore with the nature conservation, ecology enhancement and tree protection requirements of UDP Policies OE3, OE5, OE6, OE7 and HD22.
Green Wedge
38. UDP Policy OE3 states that the open character, landscape, recreational and ecological quality of the GW will be protected and improved by refusing proposals for new development that would affect the predominantly open character of the GW or reduce the physical separation between existing built up areas. UDP Policy OE11 has similar aims in respect of green space, seeking to protect the recreational function and the visual amenity value of the green space in terms of important vistas, key frontages which are visible from a main road, important trees and landscape features, and its relationship to the surrounding area and other green spaces.
39. The appeal site lies within and just above the widest part of the Calderstones /Woolton GW. Allerton Manor Golf Course lies to the north beyond Allerton Priory and to the east the site adjoins Allerton Tower Park. To the west outside the GW is housing along Allerton Road. To the south the site is separated from Clarke Gardens by Woolton Road. The GW at this point is a broad swathe of land that provides clear separation between Allerton and Woolton, and a distinctive mature verdant character to Woolton Road.
40. The parameters plan, secured by condition, would determine the extent and location of housing on the site. As a result housing within Parcel C would be very largely enclosed by existing mature vegetation that occupies a deep margin around the eastern corner of the site and extends west along Woolton Road approximately as far as the derelict sports pavilion. The proposed access to this parcel would create an opening in the tree belt but only glimpsed views of housing to the east of this road would be visible to walkers along the road or within Clarke Gardens, with the retained and enhanced woodland extending into the site in evidence to the west.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
41. Woodland trees would be the predominant feature too in views along the access to Parcel B with housing off-set to the west beyond open space lying behind the roadside vegetation. Further west of this, close to the junction of Woolton Road with Allerton Road, existing vegetation is more sparse and the land higher in relation to the road and boundary wall. Housing here would be sited nearer to the road albeit that at the junction it would sit beyond an area of open wetland. As a result it would be visible to road users, walkers on the central reservation and to people in Clarke Gardens at least in the initial years following construction before boundary planting matures.
42. The visual intrusion of the proposed development on those travelling along Woolton Road as it passes through the GW and on walkers in Clarke Gardens would be largely limited therefore to the western edge of the GW close to the junction with Allerton Road. Other than this, continuity of mature vegetation across the GW along and across Woolton Road would remain the defining feature of the area and the ‘parkway approach’ to the city.
43. The proposed housing would have a greater effect on the Allerton Road edge of the GW. Here overtime maturing and enhanced planting would soften the site/road edge but views to varying degrees into the open grassland are now visible from the road and will be available from the upper windows of houses on Allerton Road. A single access from Allerton Road together with planting and the set back of the houses would ensure the development as seen here would have a spacious and verdant character that would distinguish it from the more dense development on the western side of the road. Nevertheless the clear difference in character between the built-up area to the west of Allerton Road and open land to the east would be eroded.
44. Any significant harmful effect on the open character of the GW as perceived from the roads and land surrounding the site would therefore essentially be confined to its western edge. Consequently I consider there would be some, but limited, harm in this respect.
45. The effect on the ecology of the site and trees I have addressed above. I noted at my site visits that even at the centre of the site road traffic noise can now be heard. The development would introduce vehicles, movement and domestic activity to the site adding to this. However, the number of dwellings each access road would serve is limited and no through roads are proposed. External lighting could be controlled by condition and designed to minimise disturbance to wildlife habitats and foraging areas. The woodland areas and retained grasslands would thus retain a considerable level of tranquillity sufficient in my view to be experienced as a refuge from the busy trafficked atmosphere of Allerton and Woolton Roads.
46. A number of local residents have described the pleasure they have gained from walking on the site, in some cases over a period of many years. The character and appearance of the site would change and the area of open space reduced. I understand the regret that those who have developed a deep and affectionate relationship with the site as it is may feel at this prospect. It would however be managed to ensure protection of many of the wildlife features for which the site is valued and public access to the site would be facilitated and secured with the potential (subject to grant of consent) to provide access across the site to the bridleway beyond the site. This would provide the opportunity for all residents
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
and visitors to the area to access and enjoy the site and as such amount to a net gain to the recreational function of the GW.
47. I find therefore very little harm, and in some respect positive benefits, would accrue to the GW and as a result no significant conflict with UDP Polices OE3 or OE11 on these basis. By the introduction of housing into the appeal site the proposed development would nevertheless reduce the physical separation between existing built up areas and as such the proposal would be contrary to UDP Policy OE3.
5 year housing land supply
48. There is no independently tested objectively assessed need (OAN) figure for Liverpool but it is agreed between the appellant and the Council that a figure of 1,739 dwellings per annum (dpa) taken from the recently published Strategic Housing and Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA) with a base date of 1 April 2012 is the appropriate starting point for assessing the 5 year housing supply and that 1 April 2016 is the date against which to carry out the assessment. In this period it is agreed there has been a shortfall of 1,520 dwellings completed. The ‘Sedgefield’ approach to dealing with the shortfall is also agreed. This gives a residual 5 year requirement of 10,2155.
49. The additional buffer to be applied in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework is disputed. The appellant refers to a 9 year record of delivery against requirement beginning in year 2007/8. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) states that a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer-term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of peaks and troughs in the housing market cycle. However, even if the previous year is taken into account giving a 10 year view, completions exceeded the annual requirement in only 3 of these years. Whilst I note an upward trend in delivery since 2012/13 and the indication that 2016/17 will be in excess, a failure to meet the requirement in 7 out of 10 years does in my view amount to persistent under delivery. I consider 20% is therefore the appropriate buffer to apply in order to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. With a 20% buffer and taking account of deductions from the supply figure agreed since the start of the Inquiry, the Council’s position is that there is a 5.02 year supply6.
50. The Council’s supply figures include the Former Sarah Mcard Nursery site, the Former Odeon Picture House site and Warehouses on Pall Mall. However the Council do not dispute that development on these sites has now stalled with no evidence available as to when it may recommence. Further Mr Bowers for the Council conceded that when the time comes for the 2017 update he will be taking these sites out. Having regard to footnote 11 of the Framework I consider these sites should not therefore be included in the supply.
51. Also included on the Council’s schedule are 3 Housing Delivery Plan (HDP) sites in Norris Green showing a 5 year supply of a total of 623 units. However, it was not disputed that a report to the City Council’s Audit and Governance Select Committee of March 2016 indicated that the residual supply from the sites was 200 units. The Council has agreed a reduction in the supply figure of
5 Statement of Common Ground – Housing November 2017 (Housing SoCG). Document 58 6 Housing SoCG Scenario 1 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
258 units7 . In the absence of evidence to suggest the situation has changed significantly since the report, I consider a further reduction of 165 units, bringing the total down to 200 units, is reasonable.
52. Appendix B to the 2016 SHLAA update: Methodological Amendments Overview records a change in approach to sites with lapsed planning permission stating that unless there is firm evidence at the study base date that residential development is being pursued they will be considered unavailable. Planning permissions for sites with a combined capacity of 283 units have expired since the April 2016 base date and no site specific evidence in respect of these has been submitted. Whilst I appreciate that at 1st April 2016 these sites had planning permission, this is not the case now. Given the absence of evidence to demonstrate that there are no impediments to development proceeding and/or a likely timescale for delivery, I consider they cannot be relied on to contribute to a 5 year supply of housing sites.
53. The Council and appellant agree that a slippage allowance on delivery of sites with planning permission or allocated for development is appropriate. The rate of slippage is disputed. The application of a site by site rate, which varies according to the circumstances of that site and the development proposed, would be more accurate than a blanket rate across all sites. However, whilst the Council’s proposed approach, applying 1% to sites with full planning permission and under construction at the base date, to 100% for smaller sites that only have outline planning permission provides a range, no evidence is submitted to indicate how closely this reflects the actual circumstances of the sites.
54. The appellant’s approach of applying a slippage factor of 10% to all sites with planning permission at the base date that are not subject to other discounts is equally non-specific. However it has the benefit of according with that put forward by the Council in the Draft Liverpool Local Plan September 20168 (dLLP) which recognises that not all the commitments with planning permission will be built and therefore applies a 10% under delivery discount. The Plan is at an early stage on its route to adoption and the weight I give to it is therefore very limited. Nevertheless it expresses the Council’s intended approach to the provision of a 5 year supply of housing sites going forward and as such lends at least some credibility to the 10% approach. In the absence of site specific evidence I consider on balance therefore that 10% slippage represents a more reliable adjustment factor than that suggested by the Council in this appeal.
55. Taking into account my conclusions on the above factors, the 5 year housing land supply as set out in the Statement of Common Ground – Housing November 2017 (Housing SoCG) is that the Council can demonstrate 4.6 years9.
56. The contribution to supply from 31 SHLAA sites that do not have planning permission is also disputed by the appellant. Of these 18 are proposed site allocations in the dLLP. Wainhomes v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin) provides some guidance on consideration of such sites. Where sites do not have planning permission and are known to be subject to objections, the outcome cannot be guaranteed. In this instance, although the appellant refers
7 Statement of Common Ground – Housing November 2017. Document 58 8 Core document 5.1 9 Scenario 3 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
in general terms to objections and has provided copies of their own objections to the dLLP, I do not have evidence as to the scale or nature of objections to particular allocations. Nevertheless since the dLLP is yet to be subject to public examination, there remains a degree of uncertainty as to outcome. On the other hand 24 of the sites are included in the HDP which I accept provides some support for their likely deliverability and all the SHLAA sites have been subject to the SHLAA assessment methodology. I conclude on balance therefore that the sites should be included in the supply for the purposes of this appeal.
57. The Council’s assessment of supply includes a windfall allowance of 1,290 derived from the volume of completions in the previous 5 years on sites not previously identified in the SHLAA. This does not however reflect windfall yield over a longer period which Mr Manley noted in closing ‘can be erratic’. Further the contribution made in the past by conversions, which the Council expect to contribute significantly to windfall supply in the next 5 year period, has not been assessed10. That the Council’s windfall allowance figure is based on compelling evidence as required by paragraph 48 of the Framework is therefore doubtful. To this element of the purported supply therefore I give limited weight.
58. Consequently I conclude that the Council can at best demonstrate only a 4.6 year supply of deliverable housing sites with a reasonable likelihood that the actual supply is somewhere closer to 4 years.
Other considerations
59. Local residents have expressed concern about the effect of vehicle movements generated by the development on traffic conditions in the area. A Transport Assessment 11 was submitted with the application. This used traffic survey data from nearby junctions and applied an established methodology to calculate anticipated traffic growth arising from the proposed development together with that of committed development in the area to establish the potential impact on the local road network. The junctions of Menlove Avenue/Woolton Road, Woolton Road/Springwood Avenue and Allerton Road/Woolton Road were assessed and found to operate within their design capacity in 2021.
60. Whilst the Highway Authority noted that some junctions likely to receive increased traffic had not been assessed, the Authority was nevertheless satisfied that all junctions would operate satisfactorily throughout the day and be able to accommodate the increased vehicle movements. I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the authority’s professional officers. And notwithstanding the limited visibility at the driveway entrance to Ye Priory Court and Allerton Priory, there is no reason either therefore to conclude that risks to the safety of drivers and pedestrians at this junction would be significantly increased.
61. Figures submitted by a local resident suggest that a number of schools in the area are oversubscribed including St Edwards College which is described as being oversubscribed by 534 in Year 7. The accompanying Freedom of Information (FOI) request response indicates that year 7 is oversubscribed by
10 Mr Bowers in cross examination 11 CD 1.18 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
4. A further FOI request also indicates that very few of the schools inquired about have plans to add class rooms in the immediate future. However, whilst future occupiers of the proposed development would certainly include families with children, no objection was received to the proposal from the Education Authority and no request made for contributions towards additional facilities in local schools. I consider this is reasonable evidence that the Authority is confident that sufficient capacity exists within local schools to accommodate the children of future occupiers of the development and on this basis I conclude that no significant harm would arise from the development in this respect.
62. The site is located in an Air Quality Management Area and as a result an Air Quality Assessment12 was submitted. This considered the air quality conditions within the site and therefore its suitability for housing, as well as the effects on air quality surrounding the site at construction stage and as a result of vehicle movements arising from occupation of the development. The officer’s report to committee records that the Head of Environmental Health is satisfied with the content and conclusions of the report, and that the development will ‘not present a problem with regards to air quality’. Whilst I understand the concerns expressed with regard to air quality in Liverpool, I consider there is sufficient evidence therefore to indicate that the appeal proposal would not contribute significantly to a worsening of air quality standards for those living in the vicinity of the site.
63. Priory Lodge sits adjacent to Allerton Road with ground levels rising behind it into the appeal site. As a result the proposed houses would sit at a higher level than the Lodge. However, built development would be confined to the areas set out in the parameters plan and houses would thus be sited a substantial distance from the garden boundary of Priory Lodge. Where, towards the southern end of the garden housing could come closer, it would be separated from it by the existing belt of trees. Further, whilst appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved matters, the illustrative layout demonstrates that there is sufficient room within the defined development areas to allow for houses to be located, orientated and designed to ensure occupiers of Priory Lodge would not experience them as overbearing or suffer any significant loss of privacy either in their house or garden. Given the distances involved and the effect of existing trees I consider also that there would be no increased overshadowing of the property. Drainage and regulation of run-off from the site can be controlled by planning condition. Whilst it is the case therefore that views from the property would change, the proposed development would have no significant detrimental effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Priory Lodge.
64. The parameters plan would ensure that the proposed houses would be set away from the site boundaries and the distance to dwellings in Ye Priory Court and Allerton Priory would be considerable. Existing and supplemented vegetation within the site would also provide a substantial degree of screening. I consider there would be no unduly intrusive views available therefore from the appeal site to dwellings or private garden areas in Ye Priory Court and Allerton Priory.
65. Layout and landscaping are reserved matters nevertheless there is a clear intention to provide paths through the appeal site and, subject to the
12 CD 1.23 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
appropriate permission, a connection to the bridleway to the east of the site. These would facilitate public access closer to the southern boundary of the Priory grounds than is available at present. However, provision of paths would direct walkers and if well designed would reflect desire lines across and around the site. I have no reason to conclude therefore that members of the public would be any more likely than now to seek to intrude on the private grounds of Allerton Priory or that the safety of children would be put at an increased risk.
66. Representations were made to the effect that the rights of the adjoining occupiers Lindsey Weekes of Priory Lodge and Sue Earl of Ye Priory Court, under Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be violated if the appeal were allowed. These concern the peaceful enjoyment of property and respect for private and family life. I do not consider these arguments to be well founded because I have found that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Priory Lodge or Ye Priory Court, nor would it unduly impact on their privacy and security. The degree of interference that would be caused would be insufficient therefore to give rise to a violation of rights under either Article 1 of the First Protocol or Article 8.
67. I find nothing of sufficient weight in respect of these considerations therefore to indicate that the proposal should be refused.
S106 unilateral undertaking
68. Trees that contribute positively to the character and appearance of Woolton Road would be removed to facilitate creation of an access road. The Tree Contribution would provide for their replacement and maintenance. I consider it is therefore necessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related to it in scale and kind. Accordingly I have taken this contribution into account in coming to my decision.
69. Having concluded that the proposed development would not result overall in significant harm to the ecology and biodiversity of the site, an off-site Ecological Mitigation Sum is not necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms. I have not therefore taken this element of the undertaking into account.
The planning balance
70. I have concluded that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. As a result relevant policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date by virtue of Framework paragraph 49, and the fourth bullet point of Framework paragraph 14 therefore applies.
71. The Council is able to demonstrate at best only a 4.6 year supply of deliverable housing sites and, whilst there has been a recent increase in completions and consents, given the early stage of the emerging local plan I cannot be confident that the shortfall in supply will be resolved in the near future. In this context the contribution of up to 160 dwellings to the City’s housing supply is a substantial benefit of the scheme.
72. Further it is acknowledged by the Council that there is a long-standing need for a greater number of ‘quality’ larger family homes. Whilst there are larger houses for sale in the area indicating that families are moving and potentially some householders are down-sizing, the need identified is for additional houses
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
to respond to un-met demand. It is evident from the agreed supply figures13 that recent developments are providing predominantly 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings with just 8% recorded as 3 bedroom units and 6% as 4+ bedroom units. The contribution the proposal would make towards meeting this particular need is recognised by the Council as a benefit and is one that I consider also weighs substantially in its favour.
73. The proposal would also provide open space that would be accessible to the public. Again this is acknowledged as a benefit by the Council although there is no identified shortage of open space in the area and the weight I give to this is therefore modest. Given the heritage significance of the boundary wall and the contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the area, the long term commitment to repair and maintain it is a benefit to which I give significant weight.
74. I have concluded that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and that this would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. More specifically, for the reasons given, I consider that the adverse effect the proposal would have on the contribution the site makes to the heritage significance of the listed buildings would be small. Having regard to the great weight to be given to the conservation of the heritage assets14, I consider the public benefits referred to above are sufficient in this case to outweigh that harm. It follows therefore that policies of the Framework relating to designated heritage assets do not in this instance indicate that development should be restricted.
75. Footnote 9 of the Framework also includes policies relating to land designated as Local Green Space as an example of policies in the Framework which indicate development should be restricted. The UDP pre-dates the Framework and does not use this term but I have nevertheless considered whether UDP Policy OE3 designation of the Calderstones/Woolton GW equates to Local Green Space.
76. Paragraph 77 of the Framework states that Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space, and that designation should only be used … where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. The Calderstones/Woolton GW encompasses some 300ha of land and its function is described in the UDP at paragraph 8.24 as protecting extensive linked areas of open spaces of City wide importance. Whilst the representations made indicate that it is valued by local residents, I agree with the views of the Council’s officers expressed in the Harthill application report to committee15 that it clearly is an extensive tract of land. Further given its City-wide functions it cannot be described in my view as local in character. I conclude therefore that the Calderstones/Woolton GW does not amount to Local Green Space for the purposes of the Framework.
77. Consequently, having regard to the second limb of the 4th bullet point, there is no indication in respect of either of these that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be dis-applied. I turn therefore to the first limb.
13 Housing SoCG Table 3.1 14 S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Framework paragraph 132 15 LPA Ref 16F/2049 Appendix 5 to Samantha Ryan proof of evidence https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 15 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
78. There would be some, but limited harm to the setting of the listed buildings. Whilst this would be in conflict with UDP Policy HD5, it is acknowledged by the Council that this policy is inconsistent with paragraph 134 of the Framework and the weight I give to that conflict is consequently limited. I have found no significant harm with regard to the effect on ecology and find no conflict therefore with the relevant UDP or the Framework policies. Further the proposal would accord with Framework policies to boost significantly the supply of housing and deliver a choice of homes to meet the needs of differing groups.
79. With regard to the effect on the GW, the proposal would reduce the physical separation between existing built up areas contrary to UDP Policy OE3 but there would be little or no harm in respect of many of the requirements of the Policy. The UDP Inspector’s report in response to an objection to allocation of the site as GW states that Allerton Road forms the obvious boundary to this part of the GW and that the site is perceived as having visual amenity value and reads as part of an extensive area of open land.
80. At the same time however the report acknowledges that the site may not perform all of the functions of a GW on the basis that the site is not used for recreational purposes, is privately owned and that views into the site are limited. This is not dissimilar to some of the conclusions I have reached. Its inclusion within the GW at that time was supported, and allocation of the land as a housing site resisted, in part on the basis that there existed the potential for meeting the need for upper end quality housing on windfall sites and that the quantitative housing supply was sufficient to meet strategic requirements. The former has subsequently proved not to be the case and I have concluded the housing land supply is now insufficient to meet the requirements of the Framework. These are significantly different circumstances to those pertaining at the time of examination of the UDP and the weight I give to the conclusion of the UDP Inspector and to conflict with Policy OE3 is consequently limited.
81. Drawing all these together I conclude that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. Accordingly the presumption in favour of sustainable development weighs in favour of the proposal.
Conditions
82. I have considered the suggested conditions and in some cases amended the wording to ensure clarity and precision.
83. The application that led to the first of these appeals was in outline with all matters except access reserved. It is necessary therefore for details of reserved matters to be submitted and approved. Development in accordance with the application drawings and in general accordance with the drawings and documents which were submitted in support of the application will ensure that the development meets the standards proposed and considered at appeal.
84. The submission of samples and details of external materials, hard surfacing and boundary treatments will ensure that the character and appearance of the area is preserved. Prior approval and the subsequent implementation of noise attenuation measures for affected dwellings in parcel B is necessary to protect the living conditions of future occupiers.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 16 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
85. Approval prior to commencement and subsequent implementation of a Construction Method Statement is necessary to protect the living conditions of nearby residents, avoid undue disruption to the highway network and protect retained planting on site. Prior approval and implementation of a scheme to assess site contamination, and as necessary remediation works, will ensure that the environment and the living conditions of future occupiers are protected. Prior approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement setting out measures to protect trees during construction and a condition requiring replacement of damaged trees are necessary to ensure the landscape quality of the site is protected.
86. Pre-commencement approval of a sustainable drainage scheme is necessary to ensure surface water is managed throughout the lifetime of the development in accordance with national standards and environmental objectives, and to ensure that adjacent properties including Priory Lodge are not adversely affected.
87. To ensure wildlife and habitats on the site are protected from undue disturbance, and the ecology and biodiversity of the site is promoted and managed in accordance with national guidance, the following conditions are necessary: Prior approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, the installation of bird and bat boxes, a scheme for the eradication of invasive plant species, approval and implementation of a landscape management plan, the provision of a 5 metre buffer between retained existing trees and new development, and submission and approval of an external lighting scheme. For clarity I have included a specific requirement for the Construction Environmental Management Plan to include measures to protect retained habitats.
88. To promote sustainable transport choices and to ensure the safety of highway users within the site and on the surrounding network, prior approval of schemes for bus stop and highway improvements are necessary, together with conditions requiring the provision of site accesses and internal road to an appropriate standard before the dwellings are occupied.
89. Conditions requiring a Boundary Wall Management scheme and approval of details and materials of new sections of the wall, gateposts, pillars and copings are necessary to protect the heritage significance of the boundary wall.
90. One of the benefits of the proposed development is that it would provide public access to retained open areas on the site. A condition is necessary to ensure this access and its retention in perpetuity.
Conclusion
91. The proposed development would conflict with the Development Plan. However, for the reasons given and having taken into account all matters raised, I conclude that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a material consideration of sufficient weight in this case to indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore the appeal should be allowed. Olivia Spencer
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 17 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
David Manley QC Instructed by Roger Mann, Liverpool City Council
He called John Hinchliffe BA (Hons) Hinchliffe Heritage B Planning MSc MRTPI IHBC Rachael Rhodes BSc (Hons) Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service MSc MCIEEM Stuart Clark Team Leader Development Management Ray Bowers Principal Planning Officer Planning Policy Team
FOR SAVE ALLERTON PRIORY:
Adrian Thompson MRTPI Instructed by Save Allerton Priory
He called Florence Gersten Carlee Graham BSc (Hons) MSc Chris Hulme Adrian Thompson MRTPI Director Lightwater TPC Limited
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Paul Tucker QC Instructed by Samantha Ryan, Turley Planning Freddie Humphreys of Counsel
He called Graeme Ives BA (Hons) Graeme Ives Heritage Planning PGDip Urban Design MRTPI Francis Hesketh BSc (Hons) The Environment Partnership MCIEEM CEnv CMLI MICFor Ian Grimshaw BA(Hons) The Environment Partnership MA(LM) MSc CMLI MRTPI Samantha Ryan BA (Hons) Director Turley Planning MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Pam Leadbeater Local Resident CPRE Cllr Sharon Connor Allerton and Hunts Cross Ward Cllr Rachael O’Byrne Allerton and Hunts Cross Ward Cllr Richard Kemp Leader Liberal Democrats John Davies Local Resident Stephen Hopley Local Resident Cllr Thomas Crone Leader Green Party Cllr Lawrence Brown Greenbank Ward Josie Mullen Save our Green Spaces Sue Earl Local Resident Jane Clarke Local Resident
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 18 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
Dr Jessica Grabham Local Resident Nick Barnett Local Resident Elizabeth Dubuisson Local Resident Cllr Mirna Juarez Allerton and Hunts Cross Ward Peter Gray Local Resident Dr Jenny Jones Soil scientist Local Resident Ursula Rigert Local Resident James Towers Local Resident Nancy Lindsay Local Resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
1 Plan showing distance of World Heritage Site from the appeal site submitted by the appellant 2 Schedule of sites submitted by the Council 3 Dennis Lowe v First Secretary of State and Tendring District Council [2003] EWHC 537 Admin submitted by the Council 4 Phides Estates (Overseas) Ltd v SoSCLG and others [2015] EWHC 827 Admin submitted by the appellant 5 Draft s106 unilateral undertaking submitted by the appellant 6 Historic England Listed Buildings and Curtilage Advice Note Consultation Draft January 2017 submitted by the Council 7 Letter from Veronica Riley – Local resident 8 Letter from Glynn Oakes – Local resident 9 Statement – John Davies 10 Letter from Lyndsey Weekes – Local resident 11 Schedule of Draft Conditions 12 Agreed Arboricultural Impact Assessment and revised drawing 4815.03 rev H Overlay of Tree Survey, Masterplan and Detailed Access Routes 13 Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) on Tree Losses 14 Impacts of nearby development on the ecology of ancient woodland Corney, Smithers et al 2008 submitted by the Council 15 Written statement of Paul Slater 16 Francis Hesketh speaking note – submitted by the appellant 17 Statement – Stephen Hopley 18 Statement – Sue Earl 19 Statement – Peter Gray 20 Letter from Eunice Huthart Local Resident 21 Letter from Rachel McCormack Local Resident 22 Letter from Jocelyn Ramsay Local Resident 23 Statement - Ursula Rigert 24 Statement - Cllr Crone 25 Statement - Josie Mullen 26 Statement - Jane Clarke 27 Statement - Dr Jessica Grabham 28 Letter from Danielle Brookes Local Resident 29 Letter from Beth and Oliver Roberts Local Residents 30 Letter from Barbara Furnival Local Resident 31 Statement – Elizabeth Dubuisson 32 Statement – Pam Leadbeater 33 Letter from Mark Phillips Local Resident
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 19 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
34 Statement – Cllr Juarez 35 Statement – Dr Jenny Jones 36 Statement – James Towers 37 Statement – Nancy Lindsay 38 Listed Building Consent draft conditions 39 Planning draft conditions 40 CIL Regulations compliance statement submitted by the Council 41 Revised draft s106 unilateral undertaking submitted by the appellant 42 Equestrian Centre viability report – Savills 2011 43 Up-dated statement – Stephen Hopley (edited) 44 Adrian Thompson – corrections to proof of evidence 45 Adrian Thompson – speaking notes 46 Bundle of documents – correspondence between the appellant and the Council re revised Housing SOCG 47 Savills Equestrian Centre update report October 2017 submitted by the appellant 48 Agreed Barn Owl Breeding sites 49 Appellant’s revised 5 year housing land supply calculations 50 Revised Housing SOCG November 2017 51 S Ryan Proof of Evidence amended paragraphs 6.97 – 6.100 52 Bundle of documents / photographs submitted by Pam Leadbeater 53 Extracts from historic map – submitted by Pam Leadbeater 54 Response to the evidence of Adrian Thompson by Graeme Ives – submitted by the appellant 55 Completed s106 unilateral undertaking submitted by the appellant 56 Final agreed list of suggested conditions for both appeals submitted under cover of an email dated 28 November 2017 57 Revised Housing SOCG and S Ryan Proof of Evidence amended paragraphs 6.97 – 6.100 submitted under cover of email dated 29 November 2017 58 Amended Revised Housing SOCG submitted under cover of email dated 1 December 2017
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 20 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
Schedule of conditions
APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) No development shall commence until samples or specifications of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples/specifications. 5) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents: (i) Drawing Numbers: Site Location Plan (Turley drawing no. 10_1 Revision 1) Parameters Plan (Turley drawing no. 3501 Revision 00) Proposed Site Access Arrangements – Woolton Road (SCP drawing no. SCP/15365/F02 Rev A) Proposed Site Access Arrangements – Allerton Road (SCP drawing no. SCP/15365/F03) (ii) Documents Noise Impact Assessment, prepared by REC (ref. 90625R3) Transport Assessment, prepared by SCP (ref. CR/15365/TA/3) Technical Note [on highways matters], prepared by SCP (ref. JA/CR/15365/TN02) Travel Plan, prepared by SCP (ref. LB/15365/TP/1) Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, prepared by L-P: Archaeology (ref. LP2043C-DBA-v1.5) Geophysical Survey Report, prepared by L-P: Archaeology (ref. LP2292C- GSR-v1.4) Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by TBA (ref. MG/4815/AIA/REV C/SEP17) Arboricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by TBA (ref. MG/4815/AIA/REV H/OCT17), including Overlay of Tree Survey, Masterplan and Detailed Access Routes (TBA drawing no. 4815.03 Rev H) Design & Access Statement, prepared by Turley Design Planning Statement, prepared by Turley Planning (ref. REDM2039) Heritage Statement, prepared by Turley Heritage Statement of Community Engagement, prepared by Turley Engagement (ref. REDM2039) Air Quality Assessment, prepared by REC (ref. AQ100787R4)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 21 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy, prepared by Waterco (ref. w1637-160422-FRA) Landscape and Visual Assessment, prepared by TEP (ref. 4729.005) Ecological Assessment, prepared by TEP (ref. 5171.01.001 Version 2.0) Environmental Statement, prepared by Turley (ref. REDM2039) Landscape masterplan (TEP drawing no. D4729.003) 6) No development shall commence until details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which they relate (i) All new boundary treatment, gates and means of enclosure (ii) All hard surfaces not built upon 7) No development shall take place, including any ground works or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: (i) days and hours of operation for construction work (ii) measures to control noise and dust (iii) details of location of site compounds, storage of plant and materials (iv) temporary highway works or closures (v) access for construction traffic (vi) parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (vii) wheel washing facilities (viii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works (ix) measures to protect existing planting to be retained on the site; and (x) details of the relevant contact person for the local community during the course of construction . The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 8) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken by competent persons to determine the status of contamination including chemical, radiochemical, flammable or toxic gas, asbestos, biological and physical hazards at the site and submitted to the LPA. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with current Government and Environment Agency recommendations and guidance and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall include: i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; ii) the potential risks to: human health; property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes; adjoining land; ground waters and surface waters; ecological systems; and archaeological sites and ancient monuments.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 22 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
9) No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development or relevant phase of development is occupied. 10) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development or relevant phase of development is resumed or continued. 11) Notwithstanding the details contained in the approved Arboricultural Statement and prior to commencement of works on site (including the pre-construction delivery of equipment or materials, or the creation of site access) an Arboricultural Method Statement, setting out measures for the protection of retained trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must include details not limited to the following: (i) Removal of existing structures and hard surfacing; (ii) Installation of temporary ground protection; (iii) Excavations and the requirement for specialized techniques; (iv) Installation of new hard surfacing- materials, design constraints and implications for levels; (v) Specialist foundations- installation techniques and effect on finished floor levels and overall height; (vi) Any retaining structures to facilitate changes in ground levels; (vii) Preparatory works for new landscaping; (viii) Auditable system of arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or supervision. (ix) Tree protection plan incorporating protective fencing 12) The approved tree protection measures, as detailed in the approved Arboricultural Method Statement pursuant to condition 11 shall be in place prior to the commencement of the works on site for each development parcel and shall be retained in place and must only be removed with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 23 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
13) Trees to be retained as identified in the approved tree reports and landscape drawings shall not be cut down, up rooted, topped, lopped, destroyed or in any other way damaged, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Unless Otherwise agreed in writing, any existing tree that suffers injury during the period of construction shall be replaced with a tree or new planting of a suitable size and species, in the first available planting season thereafter, all works to be carried out to BS 4428: 1989 "Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations", in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority. 14) The landscaping Reserved Matters application, required by condition 1 shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the Landscape Management Plan approved in accordance with condition 21 and Landscape masterplan (TEP drawing no. D4729.003) and shall include a programme of landscaping and planting. Landscaping and planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme and any trees or shrubs which die, become diseased, damaged or are removed within 3 years of planting shall be replaced with trees and shrubs of similar sizes and species or as may otherwise be agreed with the local planning authority, in the first available planting season thereafter, all works to be carried out to BS 4428: 1989 "Code of Practice for General Landscape Operation". 15) Development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme, based on the hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance with evidence of an assessment of the site conditions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water drainage scheme must be in accordance with the Non- Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any subsequent replacement National standards and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no surface water shall discharge into the public sewerage system either directly or indirectly. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 16) No development shall take place until details of the implementation, adoption, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Those details shall include: i) a timetable for its implementation; and, ii) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime. The sustainable drainage system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 17) Prior to the first occupation of the 10th dwelling of each development parcel, as identified in the approved parameters plan, a scheme and appropriate scaled plan identifying suitable locations on the site for the erection of bird nesting boxes and bat boxes for that parcel together with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 24 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
a timetable for implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme of nesting and bat boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 18) No works on site shall commence until a method statement showing the extent of Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam and a scheme for their eradication from the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include:- A plan showing the extent of the invasive species What methods of eradication will be used to prevent the plant spreading further, including demarcation What methods of eradication will be used A timetable for its implementation, and Details of ongoing monitoring The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with approved details. 19) A validation report confirming the remediation treatment carried out on the site in respect of invasive species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority on an annual basis until it can be demonstrated that the site has been free of invasive species for 12 consecutive months. 20) No development shall take place, including any site preparation or ground works, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall accord with the recommendations of the Ecological Assessment, prepared by TEP (ref. 5171.01.001 Version 2.0) and include: i) Measures to protect areas of grassland, scrub, woodland edge and woodland habitat that are to be retained ii) If it is necessary to undertake works during the bird breeding season (1st March to 31st August) then any buildings, trees and scrub must be checked by an appropriately experienced ecologist to ensure no breeding birds are present. If present details of how they will be protected shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before works commence including loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) Hedgehog and mammal construction Reasonable Avoidance Measures iv) Pre-commencement survey for badger The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 21) No development shall take place until a Landscape Management Plan, incorporating a habitat / ecological management plan for all undeveloped areas as shown on the approved parameters plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the timescale, programme and the body responsible for its implementation. The approved plan to be implemented in perpetuity. Any successors to the original body responsible for its implementation
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 25 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority in writing within one month of any such change occurring. 22) The reserved matters application shall ensure that a 5m buffer is maintained between the canopies of the existing trees on the site and any new built development, including private gardens. With the exception of the works required to provide access to the development from the existing public highway, all roads and any new utilities to be provided shall be located beyond the Root Protection Areas of the existing trees. 23) Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall 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. The scheme shall include: i) Creation of the site access points. ii) Improvements to the existing gap in the central reserve of Woolton Road opposite the access to Allerton Tower to widen the carriageway and provide footway linkage to the principles of Singleton Clamp drawing No. SCP/15365/F04. iii) Creation of a new gap in the central reserve of Woolton Road opposite the eastern-most site access which incorporates a 6m wide carriageway and new footway linkage between the existing footways of the Woolton Road northbound and southbound carriageways. iv) Provision of new pedestrian linkage across Woolton Road at its junction with Allerton Road to connect the two existing bus stops with the site. v) Replacement/upgrade of street lighting necessary as part of the detailed design required as a direct result of the development. vi) Drainage works necessary to facilitate the highway works. vii) Measures to protect retained trees during the course of the works viii) A programme for implementation of the works
The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development in accordance with the approved programme. 24) Except for site clearance and remediation no development shall commence until a scheme for improvements to the existing bus stop infrastructure on both sides of Woolton Road near its junction with Allerton Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No more than 50 dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the approved scheme of improvements has been carried out. 25) No part of the development served by the relevant access points hereby approved shall be occupied until that access and associated visibility splays have been fully provided in accordance with Singleton Clamp Drawing Nos. SCP/15365/F02-RevA & SCP/15365/F03. 26) The gradient of the vehicular access points shall not exceed 1 in 40 for the first 15 metres into the site measured from the nearside edge of the carriageways of Allerton Road and Woolton Road respectively.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 26 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
27) Except for the purposes of constructing the initial site access points, there shall be no movement of construction or other vehicles between the highway and the application site until that part of the access extending from the nearside edge of the carriageways of Allerton Road or Woolton Road (relative to the specific phase) for a minimum distance of 15 metres into the site has been appropriately paved in a bound material such as tarmacadam, concrete, block paviours or other material approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 28) No dwelling shall be occupied until that part of the internal highway infrastructure which provides access to it shall have been constructed to binder course surfacing level or paved in accordance with the approved plans. 29) Prior to commencement of any development within parcel B as shown on the approved parameters plan, a Noise Assessment Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out any measures required to ensure a satisfactory noise environment within those dwellings . The measures detailed shall include, but not be limited to:- mechanical ventilation in habitable roomed windows with direct line of site to Woolton Road acoustic garden fencing The approved measures shall be implemented in full for any affected dwelling prior to the occupation of that dwelling. 30) Before the development is first occupied a Boundary Wall Management scheme that includes a schedule of works (including repointing where necessary and repairs to damaged sections), proposed methodology, programme of implementation and details of the body/bodies responsible for its implementation and long term maintenance, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 31) All additional sections of boundary wall required in connection with the creation of the new accesses to the site shall be constructed from sandstone, samples of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Wherever possible, the reuse of existing sandstone from the original wall should occur. The method and mix of pointing to be used shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority through the preparation of a 1 sqm sample panel. The pointing works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied/brought into use. The approved sample panel shall be retained on site throughout the construction of the site entrance walls. 32) Details and material samples of all new gateposts, pillars and copings at site entrances shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling to which the respective site entrance gives access. 33) Details submitted as part of the Reserved Matters application shall show all publicly accessible open space within the development, and publicly accessible routes across and through that land. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall be no less in area than the land identified on the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 27 Appeal Decisions APP/Z4310/W/16/3166010, APP/Z4310/Y/17/3171487
approved parameters plan, pursuant to condition 5. The land shall be fully accessible to the public at all times in perpetuity unless required for ecological management as identified in the approved ecological management plan pursuant to condition 21. 34) Details of all external lighting on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any dwelling is first occupied. The external lighting scheme shall be designed to protect ecology and avoid excessive light spill onto woodland trees and hedgerows. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 28
Site name: Allerton Green Wedge LWS Number 2
Site area: 93.41 hectares National Grid Reference: SJ413864 Date of Designation: January 2018 District: Liverpool Date of Last Revision:
CITATION: A group of mature parkland sites comprising of Allerton Tower, Allerton Manor Golf Course, Allerton Priory and Carmelite monastery. The sites form one continuous ecological unit within the Allerton Green Wedge. Habitats include mature woodland and plantation woodland, with English bluebell, a range of grassland habitats, scrub and tall ruderal herbs. Together they provide a mosaic of habitats which support assemblages of breeding birds, butterflies and provide habitat for two nationally notable beetle species. This site provides an important wildlife corridor into the city linking with a number of other LWS sites.
APPRAISAL: This site has been evaluated against the North Merseyside Local Wildlife Sites Selection Guidelines. The site’s evaluation against the guidelines is set out below.
Guideline Comment HABITATS H1 Rarity 2 Priority Habitats (NERC) BAP Priority Habitats; 1 Regionally important habitat H2 Diversity 10 habitats recorded H3 Nearness -- H4 Isolation -- PLANTS Sp1 Rarity 1 Wildlife and Countryside Act species; 1 Regionally important species; 2 North Merseyside locally rare species. Sp2 Diversity A total of 162 plant species has been recorded. Sp3 Naturalness 76% of the plants are native to the city. Colonisation has been aided by man and the site has been physically altered. Sp4 Nationally rare -- ANIMALS General Sp5 Rare and /or priority 1 Nationally notable beetle species, 1 Nationally notable B beetle species. Birds B1 Non-breeding -- population B2 Breeding population -- B3 Regionally rare or -- scarce B4 Breeding --. assemblage B5 Assemblage Guideline met. The site supports a breeding assemblage of 43 breeding, wintering, qualifying bird species associated with habitat mosaics. passage Dragonflies Od1 Breeding -- Od2 Regionally rare or -- scarce Butterflies Bf1 Regionally rare or -- scarce Bf2 Breeding Guideline met. Supports a breeding assemblage of 13 qualifying assemblage butterfly species. Amphibians A1 Rarity -- A2 Exceptional -- population Reptiles
Prepared by Rachael Rhodes, Merseyside EAS January 2018 R1 Population of native -- species R2 Exceptional -- population Bats Bat1 Roost -- Bat2 Assemblage --
Mammals M1 Breeding --
SUMMARY: The combination of these factors has led to this site being identified as a Local Wildlife Site.
NOTE: Validated data from 1981 to November 2017 have been used in this assessment. Other data may become available to support this designation.
Local Wildlife Site qualifying features
Habitats Habitats recorded on site Neutral grassland un-improved Semi-natural broadleaf woodland Scattered broadleaf trees Dense scrub Scattered scrub Tall ruderal herbs Broadleaf plantation woodland Neutral grassland semi-improved Bracken continuous Poor semi-improved grassland 2 Habitats of Principle Importance (NERC) Semi-natural broadleaf woodland Unimproved neutral grassland
1 Regionally Important habitat Unimproved neutral grassland (North West Biodiversity Audit)
Plants Diversity An assemblage of 162 plant species recorded on site
1 Wildlife and Countryside Act species English Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta
1 Species of Conservation Concern English Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta
1 Regionally important species English Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta (North West Biodiversity Audit) Small-leaved lime Tilia cordata Tutsan Hypericum androsaemum
2 Locally rare species Scaly Male-fern Dryopteris affinis Hedge bedstraw Galium mollugo Animals SP5 – Nationally notable coleoptera species Microdota benickiella Nationally notable Quedius (Microsaurus) truncicola Nationally notable B
Butterfly assemblage – Bf2 An assemblage of 13 butterfly species.
Breeding bird assemblage – B5 An assemblage of 43 species
Prepared by Rachael Rhodes, Merseyside EAS January 2018