Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 29 August 2012

Subject : S/2012/0413 Merlin AFS Shed adjacent to Royal Seaforth , Seaforth

Proposal: Erection of an extension to the existing Merlin Animal Feedstuff (AFS) store including the extension of the existing external conveyor system, alterations to the existing vehicular access, alterations to the existing surface water drainage system, relocation of the existing Nature Reserve Offices and relocation of key natural habitat features

Applicant: Mersey Docks & Agent: Mersey Docks & Harbour Co Harbour Company

Report of: Head of Planning Services Wards Affected: (Church Ward)

Is this a Key Decision? No Is it included in the Forward Plan? No

Exempt/Confidential No

Summary

This application is seeking consent for the erection of a 23,234 sq m extension to the existing animal feed store at land adjacent to the Royal Seaforth Dock which is within the operational boundary of the Port of .

The main issues for consideration are the principle of development, impact on residential amenity and the impact on the nature designations adjacent.

Recommendation(s)

Approval

Reasons for the Recommendation:

The proposal is appropriate development within the Port estate and will not have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity, or on the designated sites adjacent. The proposal therefore complies with Sefton's adopted UDP policies CPZ1, CS3, DQ1, DQ2, EDT1, EDT9, EP2, NC1, NC2 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Subject to conditions and the careful implementation of the scheme, and in the absence of all other material planning considerations, the granting of planning permission is justified.

Implementation Date for the Decision

Immediately following the Committee/Council/Working Group meeting

Contact Officer: Mandy Biagetti Telephone 0151 934 4313

Case Officer: Andrea Fortune Telephone 0151 934 2208 (not Wed)

Email: [email protected]

Background Papers:

The following papers are available for inspection by contacting the above officer(s).

History and Policy referred to in the report

S/2012/0413

The Site

The site comprises an area of land adjacent to the existing Merlin Animal Feed Storage (AFS) facility, adjacent to Royal Seaforth Dock. The site is within the operational boundary of the .

Proposal

Erection of an extension to the existing Merlin Animal Feedstuff (AFS) store including the extension of the existing external conveyor system, alterations to the existing vehicular access, alterations to the existing surface water drainage system, relocation of the existing Nature Reserve Offices and relocation of key natural habitat features

The proposed extension will double the size of the existing AFS of 23,234 sq m to have a total floorspace of 46,468 sq m. A small part of the development site lies within land designated as part of the Mersey Narrows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and areas proposed as Special Protection Area and proposed Ramsar site, though not formally designated as SPA or Ramsar yet.

The purpose of the extension is to remove the need for multiple handling and transport of animal feed within the port estate by Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs). This is currently necessary when a new shipment of fee is due to arrive at the port and the existing AFS is at capacity and unable to store additional feed before being transported elsewhere. This is clearly inefficient and has a knock-on impact on other areas of the port and general vehicle movements within the port estate. This extension will eliminate the need to transfer feed to other areas of the port and will enable all feed to be dealt with and stored in this location.

History

Lengthy history for port estate.

Most relevant is that the existing AFS facility was erected in 2003 as permitted development under Class B, Part 17 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. No planning permission was required nor the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Consultations

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service – We have reviewed the Environmental Statement and its appendices, information provided by Merseyside BioBank, Natural and Environment Agency to inform our comments. A number of planning conditions are required to avoid, minimise, mitigate and possibly compensate for identified environmental impacts in line with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (including paragraphs 109 & 118) and current Sefton UDP Policies. Overall, we are supportive of the application to extend the Merlin AFS store provided that a number of matters are subject to planning condition. In our view, the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) forms an acceptable basis to consider the environmental implications of the proposal. A separate Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required and this is currently in preparation. Natural England’s view on the scope of the HRA will be taken into account during the preparation. The HRA may highlight requirements for additional planning conditions or scheme amendments.

The HRA has now been undertaken and has concluded that the planning application a) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the sites; b) does not intrude into the Natura 2000 sites listed below; c) is not considered, either along or in combination with any other plans or projects, to have a likely significant effect on each of the following sites: • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore potential Special Protection Area (pSPA);and • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore proposed Ramsar site (pRamsar).

Accordingly no appropriate assessment is require under Regulations 61, 62 and 68 of the Conservation Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

If there are changes to the project i.e type of build, location, timing that may affect the conclusions, then the project will require further assessment.

We advise that the following environmental issues raised can be dealt with by a number of planning conditions as set out below:

The application proposal will result in: • A loss of a very small area of designated site and is likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pSPA and pRamsar has been notified. An Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 is in preparation; • A loss of part of the Mersey Narrows SSSI, together with improvements to habitat quality through habitat creation proposals – this also applies to the Local Wildlife Site; • Removal of a number of HGV journeys using public roads, including the A565, to shuttle animal feed around the Port of Liverpool estate resulting in changes in air quality emissions for residential areas; • Changes in the noise regime across the designated sites and the neighbouring residential areas; • Proposals for dealing with increased surface water discharge and storage using a new underground storage tank and the existing wetland.

Matters to be dealt with by planning conditions Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 1. The CEMP must show how the main construction effects of the development are to be minimised, which include detailed mitigation measure such as: • details of construction and demolition waste management; • details of pollution prevention; • details of soil resource management including estimated quantities to be removed from the site; • details of the lighting scheme proposed during construction. (Note: lighting should be directed away from the designated sites); • include the working and safety zones, together with noise and visual screening proposals (email as shown on “Working Area within SSSI Figure 2 Rev A dated 6 July 2012); • details of methodology for removal and translocation of vegetation; • a waste management audit.

Drainage Strategy 2. Submission of a detailed drainage strategy for the maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system (settlement tanks, pumps and reedbed system).

Restoration Scheme for Designated Sites 3. Details of the management and monitoring of the reinstatement and restoration of the designated site, together with the translocation / enhancement areas. The strategy should include measures of the success of the reinstatement/restoration works and any post-restoration remedial works to secure successful re- establishment of the ecological features affected. The strategy should be agreed within 2 months of the grant of the planning permission. For clarity: this applies to the following designations pSPA, pRamsar, SSSI and Local Wildlife Site.

Invasive Species 4. Two invasive species are present within the site boundary. The applicant is required to submit a method statement for Australian Stonecrop ( Crassula helmsii ) and Japanese knotweed ( Fallopia japonica ), which can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition and include the following: • a location plan showing where the species are; • how they will be demarcated to prevent further spread; • identify what method(s) of control will be used; • set out when annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the Council. Monitoring reports should describe the current status of insert species at the site and provide full details of the treatment undertaken. Monitoring reports are required until no insert species has been recorded at the site for 12 consecutive months. 5. A validation report is then required confirming the remediation treatment carried out and that the site is free of both species for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

Ecological Clerk of Works 6. Requirement for on-site Ecological Clerk of Works to undertake and supervise implementation of the habitat translocation, re-instatement/restoration and enhancement works, together with the invasive species method statement, and undertake a watching brief for reptiles and amphibians.

Breeding Birds 7. No tree felling/scrub clearance/vegetation management/ground clearance should take place during the period 1 March to 31 August inclusive to protect breeding birds.

Additional Comments 8. The development site is within the following designated sites: • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pSPA and pRamsar; • Mersey Narrows SSSI; • Seaforth Nature Reserve Local Wildlife Site.

9. The development will have direct and /or indirect effects on the designated sites. These effects have been considered through the Environmental Statement and a number of construction and operational mitigation measures have been identified that will avoid or reduce the effects to less than significant.

10. One of the outcomes of the proposed development will be a physical loss of part of the designated sites. A hierarchical approach to evaluating the significance of the impacts has taken place with the result that internationally and nationally designated sites’ protection has taken precedence. This is in accord with UDP Policy NC1 and the NPPF. Mitigation for this physical loss is proposed that will enhance land that is currently outside of the designated sites and this will be a benefit of the proposal. The newly created habitats must be subject to a programme of ongoing management that includes monitoring of its success (see point 3 above).

Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development subject to conditions including: - the submission and approval of a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat and implemented as such thereafter. - The submission and approval of a landscape management plan including long term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedule and implemented as such thereafter. - Flood risk – the flood risk assessment demonstrates how the discharge of surface water from the proposed development is to be managed. We condition this to be acceptable in principle. - Contaminated land – we consider that the controlled waters at this site (groundwater and salt water lagoon) to be of low environmental sensitivity. Furthermore the report (Geoenvironmental Appraisal Ref 3580-G-R001RevA, March 2012) identified the fresh water lagoon as a controlled water. However, as defined by the Water Resources Act 1991, we do not believe this to be the case. Therefore we will not be providing detailed site-specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for the site. - Water quality – the applicant should ensure any new drainage facilities does not cause any deterioration in the water quality of any drainage ditches flowing into the Seaforth Nature Reserve. In reference to Section 4 of the Water Treatment Assessment (Wildlife and Wetlands Trust (Consulting) ltd, Feb 2012) the application should ensure the site has the correct amount of treatment for the extra surface water discharge, as to not adversely affect the water quality of the nearby wetlands. - Waste – if any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility. The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off site movements of wastes. The development as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. The developer must apply the waste hierarchy in a priority order of prevention, re-use, recycling before considering other recovery or disposal options. In England it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan for all new construction projects worth more than £300.000.

Natural England – The site is partially in and likely to affect the Mersey Narrows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and proposed Ramsar (pRamsar). Natural England is of the view that the proposal, as submitted, is likely to have a significant effect of the interest features for which Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pSPA and pRamsar. Under Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations 2010, Natural England advises that your Authority undertakes an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this proposal on the site’s criteria and ecological features.

SSSI – No objection, with conditions: Natural England is satisfied that, subject to the impositions of the following conditions, this development proposal will avoid impacts upon the interest features of the Mersey Narrows SSSI. Prior to commencement a Construction Environmental Management Plan must be submitted and approved; a statement detailing the proposals for the maintenance and management of the surface water drainage system should be submitted and approved prior to commencement; a strategy detailing the reinstatement / restoration or enhancement and monitoring of the areas within the designated site disturbed during the construction period must be submitted and approved prior to commencement and also a strategy detailing the management, maintenance and monitoring of habitat translocation area. This strategy should include indicators to measure the success of the restoration works and details of remedial works, if required. To secure the successful establishment of the ecological features created within the areas translocated habitat.

Environmental Statement and Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a number of discrepancies and points of clarification have been identified. These are now resolved.

Sefton should assess the impact on protected species, local wildlife sites, local landscape and biodiversity enhancements.

A Habitats Regulations Assessment has now been carried out on this scheme and has concluded that, either alone or in combination with the other plans or projects, this project will not be likely to have a significant effect on the following protected sites: • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pSPA; and • Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pRamsar site.

Merseyside Fire Service – Access for fire appliances should comply with Sections 52/55 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980 and with requirements of Approved Document B5 of Building Regulations. Water supplies for fire fighting purposes should be risk assessed in accordance with undermentioned guidance in liaison with the water undertakers (United Utilities 0161 907 7386). The water supply infrastructure to any industrial estate should be as follows with the mains network on site being normally at least 150mm nominal diameter: • Up to one hectare, 20 litres per second • One to two hectares, 35 litres per second • Two to three hectares, 50 litres per second • Over 3 hectares, 75 litres per second The premises should comply with Section 53 of the County of Merseyside Act.

Highways Development Control – The site is located within the dock estate and these proposals will effectively double the size of the existing animal feed storage building. A Transport Statement has been submitted as part of this application and explains how there will be a reduction in vehicle mileage on the surrounding highway network due to a number of satellite storage buildings ceasing to be used in connection with this business. Although no mention has been made in the Transport Statement about the traffic that will be generated by the re-use of the vacated storage sheds, the levels of vehicular traffic generally associated with a B8 (storage and distribution) use are very low.

Built Environment Director – Head of Environment – Noise - The noise assessment REF 9X1835 reviews the potential noise impact from both construction and operation of the proposed extension of the Animal Feed Store (AFS). Construction - It is indicated that a detailed construction program is not currently available. However, it is indicated that the recommendations of British Standards 5228- 1:2009 code of practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise would be taken into account during the construction phase. I would advise that a schedule of works for the construction phase is submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the development. Operation - It has been indicated in the operation plan for the development, that the proposal would reduce traffic movements, as a consequence there will be a reduction of the noise impact on the local community from vehicle movements with in the dock estate. However, certain aspects of the operation i.e. plant and equipment, weigh bridge, etc. will be virtue of extending the AFS closer to residential dwellings will be relatively louder. However it has been indicated in the noise assessment there will not be a detrimental effect on the nearby residential amenity. Air Quality - There are several issues raised in the Air Quality Assessment REF ST12586. Nox and PM10 are associated with vehicle emission, it has been indicated that the proposal would reduce vehicle movements around the dock estate. Therefore there would be a reduction in Nox and PM10 associated with the operation. This will have a positive impact on the local community. Dust - I would confirm this department has no specific issues with dust from the existing operation of the AFS. It would be envisaged that this situation will not change with the operation of the proposed development. Odour - The Air Quality Assessment considers odour as a potential problem area and I would confirm this department receives periodic complaints concerning odour from the existing operation from a wide area surrounding the dock estate. The proposal indicates that the management of the products within a larger storage area and the provision of a quarantine area would reduce the potential for the production of odour generation through overheating of stored product. My concern with the proposal is, should the product overheat, what measures are to be put in place to physically control odour from overheating product within the building and thus preventing fugitive emissions. It has been indicated that, the quarantine area would be used to spread out product to reduce heat. However there is no indication as to the control of the potential odour produced and any fugitive emissions from the building.

Various negotiations and discussions have taken place to resolve the potential odour issue and plans have been submitted showing provisions to be made within the scheme. It is therefore concluded that there is no objection in principle to the proposal subject to conditions requiring:

• A detailed proposal for the construction of an adequately sealed isolation area to contain overheating/decaying animal feed should be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of development. The approved proposal should be implemented before the operation of the extended animal feed store and retained thereafter;

• A detailed scheme for the extraction of contaminated air from the isolation area should be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of development. The detailed scheme should include noise control, odour control, provision of negative pressure etc. The approved scheme should be implemented before the operation of the extended animal feed store and maintained during the use of the isolation area.

Land contamination Summary for Planning Services: It is advised that the following Conditions and Informative should be attached to any Planning Approval granted for the development proposed under Planning Application S/2012/0413: Conditions Con-1; Con-2; Con-3; Con-4; Con-5 Informatives I-15 The comments detailed below provide advice with concern to satisfying the requirements of Con-1 and Con-2 of the standard Contaminated Land Planning Conditions listed above.

Comments for Planning Services Controlled Waters 1. The Environment Agency (EA) has advised that the controlled waters receptors (groundwater and saltwater lagoon) identified at the site are considered to be of low environmental sensitivity. Furthermore, as defined by The Water Resources Act 1991, the freshwater lagoon is not considered to be a controlled waters receptor.

2. The EA has advised that the developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Environment Agency ‘Guiding Principles for Land Contamination’.

Ecology 3. As advised in the memorandum (ref: SR191927), dated 28 May 2012, in relation to the investigation and assessment of the risks associated with ecological receptors it is advised that a consultation is undertaken with Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS). This consultation will be necessary to ensure that the requirements of Con-1 have been satisfied. Any comments or advice provided by MEAS should be forwarded to this Section.

4. In paragraph 2.5.1 of section 2.5 ‘Japanese Knotweed’, of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-G-R001Rev B) dated June 2012, it has been stated ‘During the site walkover, we did not notice the presence of any Japanese knotweed. However, it should be noted that we are not qualified ecologists and as such cannot guarantee the absence of knotweed of other invasive vegetation’. It is advised that the requirement for an invasive species survey, completed by a trained ecologist, should be clarified with MEAS. Any advice provided by MEAS should be forwarded to this Section.

Remedial Works 5. It is detailed in the ‘Conclusions and Recommendations’ of the iD Geoenvironmental correspondence (ref: 3580/LM/HGRA1), dated 29 May 2012, that ‘In accordance with Wilson and Card we consider that for office/commercial industrial development, the site is classified as Characteristic Situation 2 (CS2)’. It is advised that the following information, concerning the gas protection measures to be installed in the proposed development, should be provided in a detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan: Full design details and scale drawings of the approved foundation design; • Confirmation from the Building Control Inspector that the approved foundation design incorporates gas protection measures to CS2 specifications; • Details of who will install the gas protection measures and when the works will be undertaken; • The Construction Quality Assurance methodologies/procedures that will be followed to ensure that the gas protection measures will be installed appropriately and without damage; and • Details of how the installation of the gas protection measures will be validated.

6. Paragraph 12.4.8, of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-G-R001Rev B) dated June 2012, advises that the ‘Excavation and removal or placement of the asbestos contaminated made ground should be undertaken under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006’. Furthermore, it is stated in paragraph 12.4.9 that ‘A Remediation Strategy will be produced which will provide specific guidance with respect to excavation and disposal of the ACM contaminated soils’. It is advised that the excavation and removal or placement of asbestos contaminated made ground must be undertaken in accordance with current HSE regulations and guidance; and the Construction Design and Management Regulations.

7. It has been detailed in paragraph 15.5.1, of section 15.5 ‘Control of Excavation Arisings’ of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-G-R001Rev B) dated June 2012, that ‘Excavations into Made Ground are likely to yield asbestos contaminated arisings’ and that ‘Made Ground arisings could be:’ • Redistributed beneath concrete and a 600mm thick engineered granular sub-base layer, where they would be satisfactorily isolated from end users. • Exported from site to a suitably licensed landfill facility. It is advised that it should be confirmed in the detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan what is intended for the soil stockpile and made ground arisings excavated from the site during the development works.

8. With regard to the excavation and removal or placement of asbestos contaminated made ground the following information should be included in the detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan: • Scale plans of the locations where asbestos contaminated made ground will be excavated and placed; • Health and safety procedures for construction workers; • Details of the environmental controls and monitoring that will be in place during the excavation and removal or placement of asbestos contaminated made ground; • Method statements for completion of works in accordance with relevant regulations; and • Evidence of the consultation with the Environment Agency with regard to the requirement for an environmental permit or exemption in relation to the reuse of asbestos contaminated made ground.

9. With regard to the disposal of the asbestos contaminated made ground it is advised that contaminated soil that is, or must be disposed of, is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal are subject to waste management legislation, which includes: • Duty of Care Regulations 1991. • Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005. • Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. • The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standards BS EN 14899:2005 ‘Characterisation of Waste – Sampling of Waste Materials – Framework for the Preparation and Application of aSampling Plan’ and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If there is any doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid delays. Evidence of the appropriate disposal of all waste materials from the site should be provided in the final site verification report i.e. waste transfer notes.

10. In relation to the presence of organic contamination it is detailed in paragraph 12.4.10, of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-G-R001Rev B) dated June 2012, that ‘No areas of gross organic contamination were encountered during the site works. However, localised areas of more onerous contamination than that identified to date may be present on site. If any odorous or discoloured materials are encountered further, advice should be sought from IDG’. It is advised that if any areas of previously unidentified contamination are encountered during the site development works then these areas should be investigated and assessed in accordance with the requirements of Con-5 of the standard contaminated land conditions.

11. It has been detailed in the correspondence (ref: 3580-G-L005) dated 18 June 2012 that ‘details of the proposed position of the relocated AST should be provided by MDHC and validation details relating to the current position of the tank following removal will be provided in the Remediation Verification Report’. It is advised that validation proposals for the current position of the AST should be provided in the detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan.

12. It is advised that the detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan should becompleted in accordance with the guidance provided in the document CLR 11 ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’ (2004).

Geotechnical Issues 13. It has been stated in paragraph 14.2.2, of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-GR001RevB) dated June 2012, that ‘The Made Ground soils beneath the site which are to be excavated are indicated to contain individual, loose and traces of asbestos fibres and ACM debris. Control measures and a specific method statement for the removal of soil which contain asbestos should be prepared by the Remediation Contractor and the Construction Contractor’. As advised above, this information should be provided in the detailed Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan.

14. It is detailed in paragraph 14.3.12, of the Geoenvironmental Appraisal report (ref: 3580-GR001RevB) dated June 2012, that ‘Piles can provide an enhanced pathway for the vertical migration of mobile contaminants. The Environment Agency may therefore object to the adoption of piles as a foundation solution’. It is advised that evidence of the consultation with the Environment Agency in relation to the adoption of piles as a foundation solution for the development should be provided in the Remediation Strategy and Implementation Plan.

Neighbour Representations

Last date for replies: 14 th May 2012 Last date for Site notice (8 notices erected on 30 th April) 22 nd May 2012

Letter received from Waterloo Residents Association: • Infilling the gap between existing port buildings is a concern as it affects views through the gap and beyond. • Request a financial contribution towards the painting of a mural on the side of the proposed building. Letter from 37 Chapel House, Queen Street concerned that more sheds built are blighting the landscape on this Green Belt land. May also affect wildlife; odours cause a problem at times and we should prevent any further sheds being erected here.

Letter from Flat 37, 7 Cambridge Road concerned that there are more than enough sheds already and this will be an eyesore.

Policy

The application site is situated in an area allocated as Port and Maritime Zone on the Council’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

AD4 Green Travel Plans CPZ1 Development in the Coastal Planning Zone CS1 Development and Regeneration CS3 Development Principles DQ1 Design DQ2 Renewable Energy in Development DQ3 Trees and Development DQ4 Public Greenspace and Development DQ5 Sustainable Drainage Systems EDT1 Strategic Employment Locations EDT9 The Port and Maritime Zone EP1 Managing Environmental Risk EP2 Pollution NC1 Site Protection NC2 Protection of Species NC3 Habitat Protection, Creation and Management UP1 Development in Urban Priority Areas NPPF National Planning Policy Framework – March 2012

Comments The main issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are the principle of the development, impact on residential amenity and impact on nature designated site adjacent.

Principle Policy EDT9 ‘The Port and Maritime Zone’ allows for development for Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 provided that it is sympathetic towards the local environment and residents. The use proposed falls within B8 and is therefore acceptable in principle subject to other issues which are addressed below.

Residential Amenity The extension, although considerable in scale, is sited well away from residential dwellings and as such will not have a significant visual impact on the residential area. The shed will be partially screened from residential areas by other existing port relating buildings and given its context and setting within the Port estate, is not considered to cause detrimental harm to amenity by virtue of the structure itself.

The largest area of concern in terms of amenity is the potential effect if the feed stored within the shed overheats as it can trigger significant odours and cause problems for residents even some considerable distance away. In order to address this issue, the proposal includes a statement which sets out the actions that will be triggered should such an event occur and how the odour emissions will be controlled.

Environmental Protection have engaged in negotiations and discussions with the applicant to resolve the potential odour issue and plans have been submitted showing provisions to be made within the scheme. It is therefore concluded that there is no objection in principle to the proposals subject to conditions requiring detailed proposals for the construction of an adequately sealed isolation area to contain overheating/decaying animal feed and a detailed scheme for the extraction of contaminated air from the isolation area. The proposal is therefore considered appropriate in this context subject to these conditions and as such will not have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity.

Impact on Nature Designations The site is partially in the Mersey Narrows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is part of the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and proposed Ramsar (pRamsar). The site also forms part of the Seaforth Nature Reserve Local Wildlife Site. The potential impact of the proposal on these designated sites has been considered through the Environmental Statement and a number of construction and operational mitigation measures have been identified that will avoid or reduce the effects to less than significant.

UDP policies NC1, NC2 and NC3 seek to protect and enhance the nature conservation objectives of sites of international, national or local importance, ensure development does not cause harm to protected or other rare or vulnerable plant or animal species or their habitats and their management over time.

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 109-125) reinforced policy on designated sites and nature conservation issues advising local planning authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity; prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from soil, noise, air, water pollution or land instability through their planning decisions.

The application proposal will result in the loss of a very small area of designated site; a loss of part of the Mersey Narrows SSSI, and will bring forward improvements to habitat quality through habitat creation proposals. The removal of a number of HGV journeys using public roads, including the A565, to shuttle animal feed around the Port of Liverpool estate may result in changes in air quality emissions for residential areas.

The proposal also includes a working area within the SSSI which is adjacent to the proposed warehouse. A 5m zone is required for access to the outer face of the building providing space for access equipment to reach cladding and gutters with room for personnel and materials to pass safely. This area will be fenced with 1.8m high continuous fence. A further zone of 5 metres is proposed as a safety zone to prevent anyone approaching too close to the construction site, particularly during erection of steelwork and cladding panels, this will be demarcated by a continuous plastic mesh barrier or similar approximately 1 metre high. The working areas are shown on Figs. 1 and 2 submitted 27 th June 2012 and are considered appropriate.

Part of the proposal includes the relocation of the existing Lancashire Wildlife Trust offices which are currently on the area to be extended onto. These will be sited adjacent to the SSSI boundary which is considered appropriate and raised no issues.

MEAS have advised that based on the information set out in the Environmental Statement and subject to a number of conditions to avoid, minimise, mitigate and possibly compensate for environmental impacts, the application is considered largely acceptable and compliant with policies NC1, NC2 and NC3.

Natural England is of the view that the proposal as submitted is likely to have a significant impact on the interest features for the designated sites. As such an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 has been prepared by MEAS and has been sent to Natural England for a formal view.

Design Policy DQ1 requires development to respond positively to the character and form of its surroundings. As the site lies within the port estate where there are a variety of functional buildings, this building is appropriate to the character of the surrounding area. In terms of specific design, the building will be constructed of profile metal cladding in grey and will be a continuation of the design principle of the existing AFS in that the building remains as self-contained as possible in order to limit potential effects upon the SSSI, proposed SPA and proposed Ramsar sites and nearby residential areas. The northern elevation will be blank in order to minimise potential noise disturbance and dust emissions towards the nature designated site. The only openings will be the entrance and exit doors which will be on the south elevation as per the existing building.

The building, given its scale and position on the edge of the port estate, will be clearly visible from positions within the surrounding area which are outside the port boundary. In particular, there will be views of the building from the residential area around Brunswick Parade. However, it forms an extension to an existing large building (23,234 sq m) and as such will not appear as a new stand alone building. Furthermore, the building is partially screened by another building and is set against the backdrop of the port state where large structures and buildings are characteristic.

Given the location of the building within the port estate, its functionality is the reason for its design and remains appropriate to the character of its surroundings, thus complying with policy DQ1.

Renewable Energy Policy DQ2 requires major non-residential development to incorporate renewable energy production equipment to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements from renewable sources.

In this case, the applicant has confirmed within the revised Renewable Energy Statement that they will be using a combination of technologies, namely electrical power derived from the Liverpool Docks Estate CHP plant (5%) and photovoltaic panels (5%). As such the scheme complies with policy DQ2 in terms of renewable energy.

Trees, Greensapce and Development The contributions and requirements set out under policies DQ3 and DQ4 are being negotiated and will be reported as late representations.

Conclusion

The proposed extension to the existing shed will bring positive benefits to the wider area with reduced HGV movements within and around the Port estate. The principle of the development is therefore considered acceptable. The overall scheme, despite its proximity to nature conservation sites, its sensitive location and type of use, is considered acceptable subject to conditions and careful implementation of the scheme. The scheme will not have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity, nor on the designated sites adjacent and as such is recommended for approval subject to the detail of contributions under DQ3 and DQ4 being agreed prior to committee.

Conditions

1. T-1 Full Planning Permission Time Limit 2. X1 Compliance 3. M-6 Piling 4. M-2 Materials (sample) 5. Con-1 Site Characterisation 6. Con- 2 Submission of Remediation Strategy 7. Con-3 Implementation of Approved Remediation Strategy 8. Con-4 Verification Report 9. Con-5 Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

10. a) Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP should include the following: i) A scaled plan to show the proposed location and direction of any artificial lighting to be used to illuminate the development site. The plan should include details of the specifications of the lighting and proposed hours of illumination; ii) Details of construction and demolition waste management; iii) A mitigation plan with regards to dealing with spillages or minor pollution incidents and the storage of oils and fuels; iv) A methodology for removal and storage of existing soils and vegetation for translocation including estimated quantities to be removed from the site; v) A strategy for the removal of potentially contaminated run-off and / or materials to a licensed waste facility; vi) Details of the extent of the working area and safety zone adjacent to the proposed extension (including incursion into the designated site) together with noise and visual screening proposals; vii) Details of the measures to minimise the impact of construction noise on the designated site; viii) Details of measures to minimise visual and noise impacts (e.g. movement within the construction site) resulting from the construction work on the designated site. viiii) A waste management audit.

b) The provisions of the Construction Environmental Management Plan approved under (a) above shall be implemented in full during the period of construction and shall not be varied unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

11. a) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed drainage strategy for the disposal of both foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy should include details of the proposals for the maintenance and management of the surface water and foul drainage systems (settlement tanks, pumps and reedbed system, on-site treatment plant, storage tank etc).

b) No part of the development shall be brought into use until the drainage system has been constructed and completed in accordance with the strategy approved under (a) above.

12. Prior to the commencement of development a Habitat Management Plan for the reinstatement / restoration or enhancement, management and monitoring of the areas within the designated site disturbed during the construction period , and the proposed translocation / enhancement areas must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy should include: i) indicators to measure the success of the restoration works; ii) details of post restoration remedial works, if required, to secure the successful re-establishment of the ecoligical features affected by the management. (For clarity this applies to the following designations pSPA, pRamsar, SSSI and Local Wildlife Site) iii) an on-site Ecological Clerk of Works is required to undertake and supervise the implementation of the habitat translocation, reinstatement / restoration and enhancement works, together with the invasive species method statement, and undertake a watching brief for reptiles and amphibians.

b) The strategy shall be agreed within 2 months of the date of the grant of planning permission.

c) The strategy shall be implemented as per the strategy approved under (a) above and retained as such thereafter.

13. a) Prior to the commencement of development, a method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing relating to Australian Stonecrop (Crassula helmsi) and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) and shall include the following: i) a location plan identifying where the species are present; ii) how they will be demarcated to prevent further spread; iii) identify what method(s) of control will be used; iv) set out when annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the Council. Monitoring reports should describe the current status of Australian Stonecrop and Japanese Knotweed at the site and provide full details of treatment undertaken. Monitoring reports are required untill no Australian Stonecrop or Japanese Knotweed has been recorded at the site for 12 consecutive months.

b) A validation report is required to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority confirming the remediation treatment has been carried out and that the site is free of both species.

14. No tree, shrub or hedgerow felling, scrub clearance or vegetation management and or cutting operations shall take place during the period 1 March to 31 August inclusive.

15. The development proposal shall incorporate equipment to produce renewable energy as set out in the Renewable Energy Statement Rev 15th 2012 in order to ensure that sufficient predicted energy requirements for the development proposal are provided from on-site renewable energy sources, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

16. a) Prior to the commencement of development a detailed proposal for the construction of an adequately sealed isolation area to contain overheating / decaying animal feed should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The approved scheme should be implemented prior to the operation of the extended animal feed store and maintained during the use of the isolation area.

17. a) Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed scheme for the extraction of contaminated air from the isolation area should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed scheme should include noise control, odour control, provision of negative pressure etc.

b) The approved scheme should be implemented prior to the operation of the extended animal feed store and maintained during the use of the isolation area.

Reasons

1. RT-1 2. RX1 3. RM-6 4. RM-2 5. RCON-1 6. RCON-2 7. RCON-3 8. RCON-4 9. RCON-5 10. In the interests of protecting the areas of special nature conservation designation and the protected species identified as being present in the area, to protect the amenity of nearby residents and to comply with policies NC1, NC2 and NC3 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. To prevent pollution of controlled waters in accordance with policy EP2 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

12. To safeguard conservation of species / habitats and secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site and to comply with policy NC2 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. The eradicate the above plant species from the site and prevent the spread of them through development works and to accord with the aims of policies EP1 and EP3 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

14. To protect breeding birds during their breeding season and to comply with policy NC2 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

15. To ensure that the development makes provision for the use of energy from renewable sources and to comply with policy DQ2 of the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

16. To prevent the emission of odour which would be detrimental to the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EP2 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

17. To prevent the emission of odour which would be detrimental to the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EP2 in the Sefton Unitary Development Plan.

Notes

1. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions¿(Con-1 to Con-5) above have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing, until condition Con-5 has been complied with in relation to that contamination. Contaminated land planning conditions must be implemented and completed in the order shown on the decision notice above.

This development requires a Site Waste Management Plan under the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008, advice on the requirements of the SWMP can be sought from the Principal Policy Officer, Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service, Merton House Stanley Road L20 3DL. Tel 0151 934 4958.

The applicant should ensure that the site has the correct amount of treatment for the extra surface water discharge, as to not adversely affect the water quality in the nearby wetlands. The applicant is advised that the findings of the Habitats Regulations Assessment were based on the building proposing auger piles. Any alternative piling method would negate the HRA findings and the planning permission.

Drawing Numbers

1112-32 RevC3; 35 RevB1; 46; Figure 2 Existing site plan

Proposed site plan