Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 5: The Economy and Employment Land Supply Issue 1: Does the Plan provide for a justified, effective and positively prepared Economic Vision and Strategy to support businesses, jobs growth and upskilling in the City over the plan period? Q5.1 Are the spatial priorities for sustainable economic growth in Liverpool in Policy STP1 soundly based and do they comprise a clear economic vision and strategy for the City consistent with the wider growth strategy and Strategic Economic Plan for the City Region/Local Enterprise Partnership? The spatial priorities for sustainable economic growth set out in Policy STP1 form part of a coherent framework which provides a clear economic vision and strategy for the City. Firstly, in Chapter 4 the Local Plan sets out an overall vision which includes the following economic vision: “Liverpool will be a city with a growing competitive and robust economy, attractive to new investment and business.” Building on the vision the Local Plan sets out (also within Chapter 4) a number of strategic priorities which provide a link between the high level vision and the policies and allocations needed to deliver the vision. These strategic priorities include: “Strengthen The City's Economy To increase the City’s economic performance by ensuring sustainable economic growth across all business sectors and areas with strong growth potential, for the benefit of the whole City to ensure economic disparities are reduced.” To deliver the economic vision and priorities, together with addressing the national planning priority to bring forward development and change in a sustainable way, the Local Plan sets out a number of spatial priorities in Policy STP1. For sustainable economic growth this means focusing economic development within the City’s key employment areas, which contain the most significant concentrations of previously developed land and vacant or underused buildings offering development potential and are in locations which are the most accessible to local communities. The approach to economic development, including the spatial priorities in Policy STP1, and the Plan as a whole, is underpinned by evidence, namely the Employment Land Study (February 2017) and the Strategic Housing & Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA). The spatial priorities, which include focusing economic development within the City’s key employment areas, the City Centre and providing support to the Airport and Port of Liverpool, also closely align with the Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy and Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) which details the interventions considered necessary to deliver growth. In particular, the SEP identifies five transformational 'strategic projects' that will deliver maximum impact and that will tie together various elements of the Growth Plan's approach. The five strategic growth projects are: Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Liverpool City Centre - A centre for Business Growth across a range of sectors including business, financial and professional services, creative businesses and knowledge businesses in the Knowledge Quarter Liverpool City Region Freight & Logistics Hub - Capitalising on the £340m investment in Liverpool2 Multi-modal Port Access - Accessing the Port of Liverpool LCR2 Energy – To facilitate and enable the transition of the City Region's Energy supply for the needs of the Growth Plan and the 21st Century; by converting the City Region’s electricity, heat and transport power requirement to 100% Low Carbon, including local sourcing of offshore and marine renewable generation. LCR Capital Investment Fund – to support the delivery of the other projects referred to above. In addition to the five projects, one of the consistent elements of the growth plans for the LCR has been the SuperPort concept which aims to bring together and integrate the strengths of the ports, airports and freight community to develop a multimodal freight hub for freight and passenger operations across the LCR.

Q5.2 Has there been engagement with the Local Enterprise Partnership and the business community to understand their needs and address any barriers to investment? Liverpool City Council has worked collaboratively with other Liverpool City Region (LCR) local authorities, strategic partners and stakeholders including the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). A Letter from the LEP at Appendix 1 to this Hearing Statement, outlines their role and support for the Local Plan Vision and Priorities, confirming that they support and align with the LEP’s ambitions for the City Region. In addition to, and complementing the City Council's own assessment of employment land need the Council, along with the Metropolitan and Borough councils of the LCR, worked with the LEP to prepared a Strategic Housing & Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA), to provide a comprehensive assessment of future housing need, jobs growth, and employment land need across the City Region for the period 2012-2037. The SHELMA considers two economic forecasts – a Baseline Scenario and a Growth Scenario both produced by Oxford Economics and the LEP. To assist in broadening the reach of the Local Plan consultation Liverpool Chamber of Commerce were invited to distribute information about the Local Plan through their networks for economic issues. Planning officers had for some years regularly attended sub-committees of the Chamber concerned with planning, construction and development and frequently gave updates on the progress of planning policy work.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Q5.3 What progress is being made on the Business Neighbourhood Plans (pages 117-118 of the submitted plan) and does that have any implications for the Local Plan? Have any been ‘made’ or progressed to examination? To date the City Council has designated six Neighbourhood Plan Areas (which are listed in paragraph 2.30 of the Local Plan) of which the following four are Business Neighbourhood Plan Areas:  Baltic Triangle  Liverpool Innovation Park  LoveCanning  Hartley’s Village Only the Liverpool Innovation Park Business Neighbourhood Area is wholly comprised of business uses and has no residential component. The three remaining Business Neighbourhood Plan Areas have been designated due to the need to balance the needs of commercial uses within the Plan areas with policies for non- business uses and to allow businesses a vote in the referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan that they would otherwise not have. It should be noted that paragraph 7.88 of the Local Plan incorrectly states that there are five Neighbourhood Plan areas. This will be corrected as a minor change which does not relate to soundness. 1. Baltic Triangle Business Neighbourhood Plan The Business Neighbourhood Area boundary was approved on 14th August 2015. A prospective Business NP Forum had been assisted by a planning consultant, Dave Chetwyn of Locality. However, to date no Forum has been designated to progress a Baltic Business Neighbourhood Plan and there are currently no plans to establish a Forum. 2. Liverpool Innovation Park Business Neighbourhood Area (LIPBNA) The Liverpool Innovation Park Business Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in October 2013 and is the only designated Business Neighbourhood Area which comprises no residential property. The Business Neighbourhood Forum was subsequently designated on 8th July 2014. The Forum comprised 23 members, representing a strong mix of businesses within the Innovation Park. The Forum was administered by a Management Board of landowners, key companies and a representative from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. Although there has been no formal dissolution of the Board it is no longer active. To date no Neighbourhood Plan has been ‘made’ or progressed to examination. 3. Love Canning Business Neighbourhood Area The Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in July 2014 and the Forum was designated in March 2015. An assessment of the Neighbourhood Plan’s draft Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

policies and their compliance with the Liverpool Local Plan was undertaken by the Council in October 2018. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was completed by consultants, AECOM, in October 2019. The Forum has yet to meet to finalise the Business Neighbourhood Plan, but their Planning Consultant, Eddy Taylor, has indicated that they hope to consult on a Plan in Autumn 2020.

4. Hartley’s Village Business Neighbourhood Area The Business Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in July 2014 and the Hartley’s Village Business Neighbourhood Plan Area Forum was approved in August 2015. An informal draft Business Neighbourhood Plan was received by the City Council in September 2016 and is currently being developed by the Forum with the assistance of their Planning Consultant, Locality. Anew forum application is to be submitted, as the existing designation expires August 2020. Overall None of the above Business Neighbourhood Plans have been ‘made’ or progressed to examination. LCC has sought to encourage and facilitate the progress of all 6 designated NP areas, but it is for the fora to progress the plans. Importantly, the disappointing lack of progress with these Business Neighbourhood Plans will not hinder progress towards adoption of the Local Plan.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 5: The Economy and Employment Land Supply Issue 2: Does the Plan identify a sufficient and suitable supply of employment land to meet the quantitative and qualitative need for land and floorspace for economic development necessary to support aspirational but realistic jobs growth? Has the Plan over-allocated employment land and protected sites as ‘primarily industrial areas’ where there is no reasonable prospect of employment use in the plan period? Q5.4 Is the overall requirement for 149.5ha of employment land in Policy EC1 soundly based in meeting the labour demands likely to arise in the City (122.2ha1) and a proportion (27.3ha) of the sub-regional demand for large scale strategic warehousing/distribution arising from the SuperPort proposals? The overall requirement of 149.5ha of employment land for the period 2013-2033 set out in Policy EC1 is soundly based on the Liverpool Employment Land Study (ELS), which was published in February 2017. The 149.5ha consists of the following:  27ha requirement for B1a/b Office and R & D uses  24ha requirement for B1c/B2 Light and General Industrial uses  71ha requirement for B8 Warehouse/Distribution uses (includes both large and small). Importantly this study has identified a requirement (which totals 122ha) which considers the needs of the city of Liverpool only and excludes employment land provision which is focused on meeting the needs of the wider City Region. In terms of meeting the additional needs of the wider City Region the ELS considers Liverpool SuperPort, in particular needs arising due to the expansion of the Port of Liverpool. As this requirement will largely be limited by the supply of suitable sites (Liverpool City Region SuperPort Market Analysis Land and Property, NAI Global, 2014 sets out suitability criteria including a minimum size of 5ha and ready access to the Port), the ELS identifies the following requirement based on suitable supply:  27ha requirement for SuperPort (Land to the West of junction of Long Lane and Stopgate Lane – 5.0ha (allocated as E17 in the Local Plan) and Stonebridge Cross 22ha (commitment and designated as PIA)) However, further work was undertaken in 2018 to assess in more detail site suitability for strategic warehousing in Liverpool and across the City Region in the report “Liverpool City Region Assessment of the Supply of Large-Scale B8 Sites” (CD 41). This work whilst dated final report June 2018 was not published until sometime after and indeed led to further work “Liverpool City Region Areas of Search Assessment (August 2019) (CD 42), including an addendum dated November 2019 (CD 42.1). Due to the publication delay the Draft Local Plan carried forward the 2017 ELS recommendations.

1 The mid-point between the Oxford Econometrics (105.6ha) and Cambridge Econometrics (133.8ha) forecasts Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

The June 2018 report concluded that of the two sites above, the Land to the West of junction of Long Lane and Stopgate Lane of 5.0ha was not in fact suitable for meeting sub regional needs. The 2017 ELS had concluded that the criteria for sites able to meet SuperPort demand included “Minimum site size of 5 ha which are capable of accommodating more than one unit of 100,000 sq m.” (pg 182, ELS). However the 2018 assessment reported that in relation to the Stopgate Lane site “the location of site within the existing industrial area makes development for smaller units more likely than strategic B8 development.” As a consequence it was not taken forward as part of the sub regional needs and therefore should not be considered part of the Local Plan supply able to meet SuperPort needs. Taken together the ‘SuperPort’ requirement, adjusted as above, and the city’s needs as identified above provides an overall employment land requirement of 144.5ha, adjusted from 149ha shown below: Hectares (Rounded to nearest Ha) B1a/b Office and R & D uses 27 B1c/B2 Light and General Industrial uses 24 B8 Warehouse/Distribution uses (includes both large 71 and small). Sub Total 122 SuperPort requirement 22* Grand Total 145* Table 1: ELS (February 2017) Employment Land Requirement 2013-2013 * the 27 ha appearing in the 2017 ELS has been reduced to 22 ha reflecting the removal of the Stopgate Lane site above. This reduces the overall need to 145 ha (as rounded). In light of the above, the City Council wish to propose a modifications to Policy EC1: Policy EC1 Employment Land Supply 1. The City has an overall requirement for 149.5 145 hectares of land for industrial and business uses (Use Classes B1/2/8), over the period of the Local Plan, to meet the needs of the City and the sub-regional demand resulting from planned development associated with SuperPort.

Q5.5 The 2017 Employment Land Supply Update (Document CD13.3) aligned to the SHELMA looked at baseline and growth scenarios and then at paragraph 1.25 made an equal split of the LCR need for large-scale B8 giving Liverpool a range of 35.2ha on a ‘do minimum’ basis and 45.4ha on a ‘do something’ scenario. The resultant figures, adjusted for economic activity rates, (Table 12 of the ELS Update) are a total land requirement of 105.6ha on a ‘do minimum’ basis and 133.8ha on a ‘do something’ scenario. The ELS December 2017 update states (para 1.29) that the 122.2ha (the basis of the requirement in Policy EC1) is roughly in the middle of this range. However, in Policy EC1, a Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

supply-led figure of 27ha for large scale B8 has been further added to the 122ha figure? Does this amount to double counting and if so, is there a risk that the employment land requirement in Policy EC1 has been over-inflated? To understand more about the 35.2ha and 45.4ha figures referred to in the Inspector’s comments, and to demonstrate that there has not been any double counting, it is useful to set out the findings from the Liverpool City Region’s Strategic Housing & Employment Land Market Assessment (2018) (CD27.0) and the Liverpool Employment Land Evidence Base (December 2017) (CD13.3) to see where the figures are derived from and how they relate to the 149.5ha (which is proposed to be adjusted to 145ha as described in the previous response) requirement set out in the submission Local Plan (which are based on the February 2017 ELS referred to under question 5.4 above). The Liverpool City Region Strategic Housing & Employment Land Market Assessment (2018) (CD27.0) At the time the ELS (February 2017) was being finalised the local planning authorities within the Liverpool City Region (LCR) jointly commissioned a Strategic Housing & Employment Land Market Assessment (SHELMA) for the City Region to provide for housing and employment land needs over the period to 2012 - 2037. The SHELMA considers two economic forecasts – a Baseline Scenario and a Growth Scenario. For Liverpool the SHELMA identifies a requirement for B1, B2 and small scale B8 uses as follows: Baseline Scenario Growth Scenario B1a/b: Office & R&D (ha) 39.7 70.0 B1c & B2 Light & General Industrial (ha) 29.4 29.4 Small Scale B8: Warehouse/ 12.7 12.7 Distribution (ha) Total (ha) 81.8 112.1 Table 2: SHELMA Employment Land Requirement for Liverpool 2012-2037 (excluding large B use)

In identifying the overall requirement for employment land, the SHELMA recognises that there is a need for large scale B8 uses to be added to the figures contained in Table 2 above. Therefore, the SHELMA identifies an additional regional need, based on two sets of forecasts, as follows:

Do Minimum Do Something Land requirement (ha) 308 397 Table 3: SHELMA Large scale B Employment Land Requirement for LCR 2012-2037

The SHELMA does not however disaggregate the large scale B8 need at a local authority level as the market for such uses is considered to be sub-regional in nature with growth at a local level being typically supply-driven.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Liverpool Employment Land Evidence Base (December 2017) (CD13.3) To enable a comparison to be made between the ELS (February 2017) which covers the period 2013-2033 and the emerging SHELMA, covering 2012-2037, the City Council commissioned a further study: Liverpool Employment Land Evidence Base (December 2017). This document is also sometimes referred to as the ELS Update, but for clarity the report is referred to as the Evidence Base (December 2017) in accordance with its front cover. As well as enabling a comparison to be made between the two sets of findings the purpose of the Evidence Base (December 2017) study was to determine whether the findings of the ELS (February 2017), upon which the Local Plan requirement is based, were still relevant. Using the employment land requirement data from the SHELMA (as shown in Table 2 above) the Evidence Base (December 2017) sets out the requirements, adjusted to cover the ELS/Local Plan period 2013-2033 (Table 4 below). Baseline Scenario Growth Scenario B1a/b: Office & R&D (ha) 36.7 54.7 B1c & B2 Light & General Industrial (ha) 23.5 23.5 Small Scale B8: Warehouse/ 10.2 10.2 Distribution (ha) Total (ha) 70.4 88.4 Table 4: Evidence Base (December 2017) Employment Land Requirement for Liverpool 2013-2033, derived from SHELMA needs. Again using the data contained in the SHELMA (as shown in Table 3 above) the Evidence Base (December 2017) report considers what extent of the large-scale B8 land may be required in each local authority (see Table 5 below). These large scale needs are derived from warehouse tonnage and traffic throughput model alongside replacement demand for ageing large scale warehousing, calculated and redistributed at sub regional level. Do Minimum Do Something City Region 2012-2037 (SHELMA) 308 397 City Region 2013-2033 (Evidence 246.4 317.6 Base, Dec 2017) Liverpool 2013-33 (indicative) 35.2 45.4 Table 5: Evidence Base (December 2017) Liverpool indicative large scale B class requirement 2013-33, derived from SHELMA needs. These indicative figures for Liverpool (35.2 ha / 45.4ha) are then added to the requirements for the B1a/b, B1c/B2 and small B8 uses (as shown in Table 4 above) to give an overall requirement for 105.6ha (ie 70.4 + 35.2) based on the Baseline/Do Minimum scenario or a requirement for 133.8ha (ie 88.4 + 45.4) based on the Growth/Do Something scenario for the period 2013-2033. The key differential between the SHELMA modelled needs for B8 is that it identifies small scale requirements through a completions trend model and then adds strategic Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

sites on top, ignoring B8 labour demand. The ELS uses a localised labour demand model reflecting historic and future local jobs for general B8 requirements, and aggregates this labour demand need with all industrial use class requirements. The ELS finds a ready supply of local B8 / general industrial sites but a limited number of future strategic sites of 5ha or more, being only two, amounting to 27ha. Both the ELS and SHELMA methods are wholly acceptable in PPG terms: however, LCC consider the ELS is better reflects local circumstances and needs. To summarise and clarify, the 35.2ha and 45.4ha figures highlighted by the Inspector are subsumed within the Evidence Base (December 2017) report’s overall requirements (i.e the 105.6ha and 133.8ha requirements) rather than the 149.5ha (adjusted to 145ha as suggested in the previous response) requirement contained in the Local Plan, which instead reflects the findings of the ELS (February 2017).

Q5.6 As I understand the evidence, the apportionment of c.27ha for SuperPort related strategic warehousing in Policy EC1 is a ‘bottom-up’ figure based on analysis of supply within the city boundary, rather than an un-evidenced share of the total demand (2012-2037) of 308-397ha in the SHELMA (depending on the two scenarios examined) (or 246ha-317ha for 2013-2033 in the ELS). Is that correct and if so is it justified by the evidence/assessment of potential sites in the ELS and Appendix B of CD23 Liverpool SuperPort March 2014? Allied to that, would the release of land through Policy EC7 at LJLA (part of SuperPort) contribute to the supply of land for strategic warehousing within the City? In terms of meeting the additional needs of the wider City Region the ELS considers Liverpool SuperPort, in particular needs arising due to the expansion of the Port of Liverpool. As the Inspector correctly notes, this requirement is supply driven and, as set out in response to Question 5.4 above, this is largely limited by the supply of suitable sites. Using criteria set out in the Liverpool City Region SuperPort Market Analysis Land and Property, NAI Global, 2014 report (including a minimum size requirement of 5ha and ready access to the Port), the ELS identifies the following requirement based on suitable supply:  27ha requirement for SuperPort (Land to the West of junction of Long Lane and Stopgate Lane – 5.0ha (allocated as E17 in the Local Plan) and Stonebridge Cross 22ha (commitment and designated as PIA)) However as noted above (see question 5.4) subsequent detailed assessment of sites suitable for strategic needs indicated that the Stopgate Lane – 5.0ha should be removed from this supply. The release of land at LJLA through Policy EC7 is necessary to enable LJLA to meet projected growth in passenger, business and commercial aviation and to accommodate the needs of businesses which require airside access and or proximity to the airport. Its combination of locational advantages make it suitable for a mix of uses. This may include some elements of logistics and strategic warehousing provided that they are demonstrably associated with aviation. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

As the land proposed to be released at the Airport is specifically and uniquely related to the expansion of the airport it has not been counted by the City Council as part of the supply needed to meet the employment land requirement identified in its evidence base, since it would not be available to the general market. Thus, while the land at the Airport is considered to be not suitable to meet the undersupply identified in Table 6 at Q5.9, it will make a contribution to meeting the growth in jobs and is technically land intended for (specialised) employment use. The City Council notes that similar approaches have been taken towards other airports (see response to Q5.8 below).

Q5.7 SuperPort (including Liverpool2 (Phases 1 and 2)) is critical to the economic growth of the city region. In terms of meeting the demand for large- scale distribution and strategic warehousing necessary to support the strategy, about 12% of supply has historically been in Liverpool and approximately two thirds within Halton, Knowsley and St Helens. Has there been discussion under the duty to cooperate regarding the outputs of the SHELMA and the ‘bottom-up’ approach of available supply in Liverpool (sites over 5ha) compared with supply in other parts of the FEMA/LCR to support the anticipated growth in this sector? Is the further work on large-scale sites (referenced in the Council’s response (LCC01a) to Q29 in EX2b now available? Following on from the initial SHELMA study (CD27.0), GL Hearn were commissioned to undertake the Liverpool City Region Assessment of the Supply of Large Scale B8 sites in June 2018 (CD 41). The purpose of the study was to update and build on the findings of the initial study in terms of large scale sites in order to identify how much of the existing supply is realistically marketable and likely to come forward for large- scale B8 uses by 2037. The June 2018 study found that across the City Region, there is 493.4ha hectares of land with development potential of which:  118.7 ha is likely to come forward for strategic B8,  221.1ha likely to come forward for strategic B2 or B8 and  153.6 ha likely to come forward for other uses or smaller development. This assessment notably falls short of the Do Minimum 2037 forecast requirements identified in the SHELMA as mentioned above in response to Q8.5 (Table 3), once adjust for quantum only coming forward for B2. It identifies that the only site in the City suitable to meet large scale B8 needs is that 22.4 ha A580 Stonebridge Cross site (this site had been identified in the original ELS 2017, alongside the Stopegate Lane 5ha [E17] site). Building on the June 2018 work a further study (August 2019) (CD 42) was undertaken to assess a further number of areas considered to provide further development potential for strategic B8 warehousing and distribution requirements Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

The findings of the August 2019 report are that of the sites assessed positively, in physical and market terms, after adjusting for potential B2 demand, there is approximately 281 ha of land suitable for strategic B8 which is in excess of that required to achieve the ‘Do Something’ strategic B8 requirement shortfall of 94.32ha identified in Table 6 of the report (as amended in the November 2019 addendum) (CD 42.1), thus fulfilling future growth requirements.

Q5.8 Does the proposed allocation of land at Liverpool John Lennon Airport under Policy EC7 contribute to meeting the employment forecasts underpinning the plan? Does the release of land at the airport for ‘employment’ uses (part 2a and b of EC7) contribute to overall employment land requirement in Policy EC1? The ELS does recognise the role of the airport and its expansion in acting as a catalyst for economic growth across the City as a whole (paragraph 3.36 and 3.75). The term Liverpool Superport includes the airport itself (paragraph 6.48). The employment forecasts from Oxford Economics and Cambridge Econometrics do not specifically build in jobs from the airport. The LJLA masterplan 2018 refers to the potential for an estimated 2,970 FTE jobs delivering potentially 118,800 sqm (12ha) across B1, B2, B8 (small or larger scale). A degree of this employment will be included within the forecasts supporting the ELS. However, the supply of potential employment sites at LJLA has not been included in the assessed supply of employment sites as the land proposed to be released at the Airport is specifically and uniquely related to the expansion of the airport. Thus, while the land at the Airport is considered to be not suitable to meet the undersupply identified in Table 6 at Q5.9, it will make a contribution to meeting the growth in jobs and is technically land intended for (specialised) employment use. The City Council notes that similar approaches have taken place at Manchester Airport to facilitate the delivery of Airport City, and at Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford Airports. These have included release of land required to accommodate airport expansion and associated employment and economic development.

Overall Land Supply Q5.9 Given significant completions since 2013, consented supply and netting off losses of employment land the residual demand is 56.2ha over the remainder of the plan period on submission. The identified supply is 62.8ha. In addition to the 2017 monitoring update in Document CD15.1 is there an updated employment land supply situation as of 1 April 2019 or possibly 1 April 2020? Using the most up to date monitoring data, the position as at April 2019 would be as follows, adjusted for the removal of the Stopgate Lane 5ha: Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

B1a/B1b B1c/B2/B8/ Total (Ha) Mixed (Ha) (Ha) A Demand 27.0 117.5 144.5 B Completions 1.9 39.6 41.5 C Commitments 5.7 42.6 48.3 D Losses 6.1 11.7 17.8 A-B-C+D Residual Demand 25.5 47 73 Identified Supply 7.3 41.4 48.7 Sub Balance -18.1 -6 -24

Allowance for LW 5.5 N/A New Balance -12.6 -6 -19 Table 6: Employment Land Supply Balance as at April 2019, including an allowance for LW. The information contained in Table 6 above provides an update to the employment land supply balance contained in the Local Plan which was the position as at August 2016. It includes any changes in completions, commitments, losses and identified supply since August 2016. There are some notable differences in the figures:  The overall completion figure in Table 6 above is lower than those shown in Table 4 of the Local Plan due to a typographical error in the ELS being carried forward: meaning the B8 completion figure for the year 2015/16 read 40.95 instead of 4.95.  The identified supply has changed due to some sites being completed: either for employment uses (so the hectares are now included in the completions – row B) or for non-B class uses (so hectares are now included in the losses – row D) Taking into account the adjustments, Table 6 above shows that as at April 2019 there is an undersupply of employment land, even when making an allowance for Liverpool Waters. This could be met through the mixed use sites in the Local Plan. It should be noted however, as highlighted in the responses to questions 5.6 and 5.8 above, that the land proposed to be released at the Airport is specifically and uniquely related to the expansion of the airport so it has not been counted by the City Council as part of the supply needed to meet the employment land requirement identified in its evidence base, since it would not be available to the general market. Thus, while the land at the Airport is considered to be not suitable to meet the undersupply identified in Table 6, it will make a contribution to meeting the growth in jobs. As noted in response to Question 5.8 above, the LJLA masterplan 2018 refers to delivering potentially 118,800 sqm (12ha) across B1, B2, B8 (small or larger scale), if this were included in the calculation then the under supply would be 7ha.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Q5.10 Noting the Employment Land Study suggests a 5% over-provision of employment land for flexibility, is it the case, nonetheless, that cumulatively, the consented supply, the sites in Schedule 7 of the Plan, the office floorspace at Liverpool Water and the employment land at LJLA would result in an over- provision of employment land against the requirement of 149.5ha? If that is the case, can the extent of any over-provision be quantified? The Council does not consider that the 149.5ha, adjusted to 144.5ha as, above employment land requirement set out in the Local Plan is an overprovision for the reasons set out above, but rather recognises that it is an amalgamation of the above evidence sources. The Council also believes that to reduce inequality and spread opportunity Liverpool’s economy needs to generate high-skilled, high-wage jobs. One of the aims of the City’s Inclusive Growth Plan is to have a Strong and Inclusive Economy. The ambition is to grow an increasingly modern, productive, and fair economy where the benefits of growth are more equitably shared amongst all citizens. The Inclusive Growth Plan aims to achieve inclusive growth in the city’s economy through working closely with and supporting local businesses to expand, and encouraging the creation of new businesses. The city needs around 6,400 more businesses to equal the British business density rate. The City is also implementing development on key economic sites including Paddington Village in the City’s Knowledge Quarter (a £1billion expansion to create a destination for primary research, education, health and science related businesses and institutions) and Pall Mall (building much needed Grade A office space which will support the growth and popularity of the Central Business District as the city region’s leading office destination), as well as investing in infrastructure. To achieve the aims set out in the Inclusive Growth Plan the city needs to provide and enable the provision of high quality employment land and business space if it is to encourage new businesses to locate in the city, as well as enable existing businesses room to expand. Therefore, the Council considers that the employment land requirement set out in the Local Plan is appropriate if the aims of the Inclusive Growth Plan are to be supported and schemes, such as those mentioned above together with new opportunities related to the expansion of Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Port of Liverpool, are to be delivered. The Local Plan submitted was based on the evidence prevailing at the time. Since, there have been significant events, not least the Covid-19 pandemic, the effects of which will of course not be known immediately. Any such effects and consequential changes to address them will be taken into account in any review of the Plan.

Q5.11 If there is an over-provision, is the Plan’s evidence base on retaining employment sites and its protective policy approach to Primarily Industrial Areas justified and consistent with national policy at NPPF2012 paragraph 22? Please see response to Question 5.10 above. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 5: The Economy and Employment Land Supply Issue 3: Is the Plan’s policy framework for the economy justified, effective and otherwise sound? Q5.12 Policy EC2 designates ‘Primarily Industrial Areas’ (PIAs). Part of the justification for PIAs is related to supporting the aims of the Enterprise Zones (EZs). What is the current status of the EZs in terms of (i) duration; and (ii) measures to incentivise employment activity within them? Would the Council’s proposed amendment to the PIA at the St Anne Street Employment Area to a mixed-use area be justified? (see Doc LCC01a response to Q37) Both EZs (Mersey Waters and Liverpool City) remain in existence for a 30 year duration from their designation in 2011 and 2012. All financial incentives from government have now expired but they retain access to the other measures, city and city region wide, to aid business support. The City Council considers that the proposed amendments to the PIA at the St Anne Street Employment Area to a mixed-use are justified. The City Council does not have anything further to add to its response to Q37 set out in LCC01a (see Appendix 2 to this Hearing Statement). Q5.13 Since plan submission the Council has commissioned and received a Local Plan Viability Assessment [Document CD29] which broadly concludes that speculative office/industrial development in Liverpool (as per the wider north-west) is not viable and has largely come forward with public sector investment, including ERDF funding. What is the funding landscape in the short term (next 5 years) to support speculative and incubatory employment floorspace provision in the City? The main sources of funding to support projects which provide economic growth across the City Region have been available through the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) Strategic Investment Fund (SIF). Last year £180m was invested through the SIF. Within Liverpool projects such as the office-led mixed use development at Pall Mall have benefited from SIF grant funding. To date LCRCA have not made sub-allocations to specific sectors but supporting the provision of employment sites is an area they have historically supported and they have confirmed that they are likely to do so in the future. The scope of this includes site remediation. To provide a sound basis for taking investment decisions LCRCA has established an Investment Strategy (this is currently in the process of revision but changes have not been finalised). In terms of funding potentially available, LCRCA are awaiting the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Government’s proposals for the ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’ (replacement for historic EU funding/Local Growth Funding). Also, at present there is slight holding pattern pending funding confirmation due to Covid-19. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Q5.14 The ELS recommends a 24 month marketing period which is embedded in Policy EC2. Is this justified (particularly if there is an over-provision of employment supply (Q5.11 above) and is it consistent with NPPF2012 paragraph 22? As noted in response to Q5.10 / Q5.11 the Council is of the view that there is not an oversupply of employment land, rather when taking into account the adjustments set out in Table 6 (Q5.9) as at April 2019 there is an undersupply of employment land, which can potentially be met through sites allocated for mixed use in the Plan. The ELS also highlights significant rent increases in recent years for industrial properties and that there is a limited supply of warehouse/distribution sites. Both the ELS and SHELMA forecast considerable future office based employment. Given the above, the requirement for a 24 month marketing period is viewed as reasonable. This ensures that short term demand weaknesses are smoothed, COVID-19 being an example. Where this evidence is presented in accordance with Policy EC2 (b) sites will be considered for other uses. The Policy is in accordance with the spirit of the NPPF 2012 insofar as the sustainable communities can be seen in the light of EC2 (b) (i) not adversely affecting capacity to meet future demand for industrial business; and (ii) use of the site for other purposes would bring wider economic, social or environmental regeneration benefits; and (c) the proposal will not be incompatible with existing retained employment uses within the vicinity.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 5: The Economy and Employment Land Supply Issue 4: Are specific strategic employment related proposals and areas within the Plan justified, effective, consistent with national policy and otherwise sound? (Liverpool John Lennon Airport (EC7), Ports of Liverpool and Garston (EC8), City Centre Main Office Area (CC1) including Pall Mall (CC1a), Pumpfields (CC2) and the Knowledge Quarter (CC3)). Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA)

Please note, the Inspector draws attention to a suite of documentation submitted in 2019 in support of the Plan’s proposals at LJLA in Policy EC7. These are in the examination library at documents CD31 through to CD31.11a. Also of relevance is document CD30.2 – the Habitats Regulation Assessment (as of August 2019). The questions below will provide an opportunity for responses/comments on this post submission material.

Habitat Regulations Q5.15 Is it justified that the August 2019 Habitat Regulations Assessment [CD30.2] concludes that the modified policy (by removing the specificity of a reference to the master plan) would not result in any likely significant effect on the qualifying features of internationally protected sites? Yes the unequivocal conclusion of the HRA is that Policy EC7 will not result in an adverse effect on integrity of any European site for the reasons provided on page 35 of the report: ‘a) EC7 makes Council support contingent on ‘appropriate assessment of the potential environmental impacts referenced in criteria a) to c) below where such assessment has shown it necessary, the implementation of appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with this growth … With respect to internationally important sites (the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, Dee Estuary SAC, Dee Estuary SPA and Dee Estuary Ramsar Site, Liverpool Bay SPA and Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar Site), development will be required to include appropriate mitigation measures agreed with the City Council and informed by an up- to-date environmental assessment’; and b) Policy GI5 will apply to the airport expansion as much as any other developments and specifically states that development would not be permitted if it has an adverse effect on integrity without demonstrating IROPI and No Alternatives. For clarity this is also stated in supporting paragraph 7.73 specifically relating this requirement to the airport expansion. Therefore the Local Plan contains a clear policy framework that development could only come forward if it can be demonstrated that it would ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site arose from the expansion of Liverpool Airport, unless the applicant was able to demonstrate Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest and No Alternatives and was able to deliver adequate compensation’. The removal of reference to the Master Plan in Policy EC7 underlines this conclusion (but is not the sole basis for it) by giving considerably greater flexibility for the policy to remain sound, robust and valid even if individual Master Plan proposals change, whilst not tying the Policy to specific proposals within the Master Plan. This is of particular importance noting that the Master Plan may need to be revisited in the light of the Covid 19 crisis. The Local Plan has considered the principle of development only. Any uncertainties over project-specific assessment and deliverability of mitigation measures will necessarily be addressed at the project consenting stage. That is the appropriate place to identify and agree precisely what additional mitigation measures are necessary. A key part of that project assessment will be to form a view on the deliverability of mitigation measures in response to the Green Belt release. This flags two matters that will be addressed through project-level HRA: (i) Strengthening of the scope of project HRA and evidence base; (ii) Appropriateness of mitigation measures to be deployed on Speke-Garston coastal reserve.

Q5.16 The HRA identifies that the area proposed for the airport expansion is functionally linked supporting habitat to the Mersey Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The HRA describes that development on the Oglet could result in the loss of significant areas of functionally linked supporting habitat for curlew, redshank and lapwing (all qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar). Survey work to date appears to be variable (based on the first full paragraph on page 30 of Doc CD30.2] with limited reliance on the older 2005-11 surveys, with only the latest winter 2017/18 survey (presented in CD31.7) providing a more up-to-date picture. Consequently, can sufficient certainty be determined at the plan-making stage of an in-principle no adverse effect on site integrity of the SPA/Ramsar? Is there a committed programme of future survey work to inform project level HRA? Are there any survey updates for winter 2018/19 and even possibly 2019/20? Are there reasonable options to mitigate the loss of functionally linked supporting habitat, with reference to page 32 of the August 2019 HRA (CD30.2) and in turn the submissions on mitigation (a proposed area of 14.1ha) on pages 14-15 of the LJLA Shadow HRA (CD31.7)? There is no reason to conclude that the principle of expansion of the airport is problematic, as expansion is not solely concerned with delivering commercial development on The Oglet. The details of the expansion (particularly on The Oglet) would require further analysis as they are developed, but the European sites are protected by the policy framework in the Local Plan. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that Policy EC7 will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any European sites. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

With specific regard to functionally-linked land, the Master Plan identifies that an opportunity exists to increase the scale, and diversify the ecological value, of the existing Speke Garston Coastal Reserve south of the airport. According to the Master Plan, ‘Expansion of LJLA presents an opportunity to establish an extension to the Speke Garston Coastal Reserve over a 3.5 km (2.2 mile) stretch of coast. This would more than double the extent of the existing Reserve, and create a nature conservation, heritage and recreational resource of regional significance that would be retained in perpetuity’. Some aspects of the Master Plan proposals may ultimately require IROPI in order to proceed but that can’t be known until detailed proposals are devised and the ability to adequately offset the loss of Functionally Linked Habitat (FLH) confirmed. Ultimately FLH elsewhere might need to be secured and delivered but there is no current evidence this wouldn’t be possible. The City Council’s view, supported by its Advisors, MEAS and AECOM, is that there is sufficient evidence at plan making stage to establish that in principle there will be no adverse effect, and that in terms of the precise impacts the policy framework ensures that there will be sufficient certainty provided at project stage. LCC, MEAS and NE will agree scope of additional survey and also scope of the project specific HRA with the Airport. There is no reason, ahead of that to conclude that the principle of the expansion will be an insurmountable issue in terms of functionally linked habitat and HRA compliance at the plan level. With regard to the mitigation of any loss of functionally, on the basis of currently available evidence there is not a significant concern about deliverability of mitigation given the low numbers of qualifying species that the evidence has identified as using the land to be allocated (under Policy EC7). While the question of how and where this would be done is a project-level rather than plan-level consideration, it is considered (by MEAS, NE and LCC) that there are sufficient opportunities available to ensure sufficient habitat is provided to avoid adverse impact. This would be achieved through measures including a land management agreement, habitat management and habitat works at Speke Garston (where the Peel Group has a controlling interest in the land) or elsewhere, sequentially starting in the near vicinity and expanding out because the habitat requirements are not unique.

Q5.17 Are the other judgements in the HRA on future lighting at an expanded airport and air quality and noise disturbance impacts arising from additional aircraft movements on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar justified? The birds on the Mersey are known to be habituated to comparatively high background light levels. In the vicinity of the airport they also habituated to current noise and air quality conditions. The judgements made in the HRA are justified and Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

reasonable. With regard to disturbance of the SPA and Ramsar site via lighting, the closest piece of new taxiway will still be approximately 100m from the SPA boundary. This is approximately 50% closer than is currently the case; however, any increase in illumination will be carefully directed into the airport (rather than out to the river) and is unlikely to affect a site so far from the airport given the existing background illumination; the fact that a landing light gantry already extends into the SPA at the western end of the runway, and SPA birds using the mudflats are not nocturnal. This is an in-principle analysis undertaken for the Local Plan, assuming sensitive lighting design for any new commercial buildings on The Oglet and would need to be proven at the planning application stage(s) once detailed lighting design and illuminance modelling was undertaken as necessary. There is nonetheless sufficient information available to conclude that this is in principle achievable. With regards to noise disturbance from operational aircraft movements, Appendix 6 of the Master Plan shows operational daytime noise contours for 2030 and compares them to those for 2016. The data indicate that noise contours will be similar in 2030 to the 2016 contours and may indeed be reduced in some locations. Notably, at the western end, approaching Bebington, the area of mudflat exposed to daytime noise above 54dB will be smaller than was the case in 2016. The appendix states that the same pattern is expected for night-time noise contours. Given this the airport expansion would not result in operational noise disturbance impacts above the current baseline. The Airport Master Plan (CD22 page 57) concludes it is unlikely that the proposals would lead to exceedances of the Air Quality objectives in future years (see Master Plan). Again, as referred to in Q5.17, project-specific assessment, rather than plan- level, would address these issues and put in place mitigation is to be secured through planning conditions or obligations if needed.

Q5.18 In scoping the environmental vulnerabilities and likely significant effects, is coastal squeeze an issue for the LJLA location? Coastal squeeze arises when actively eroding frontages are artificially reinforced such that intertidal habitats which would ordinarily be able to retreat landwards in the face of rising sea levels (and thus maintain their overall extent) can no longer do so. Section 11a 7.8 of the frontage covered by the North West England and North Wales Shoreline Management Plan sets the coastal defence policy for the River Mersey between Pickerings Pasture and Garston Industrial Estate between 2010 and 2110. This section of frontage has a policy of No Active Intervention meaning that hard defences to prevent erosion are not proposed. However, the Policy Statement for section 11a 7.8 states ‘No erosion risk to the airport [is] predicted in the Shoreline Management Plan appraisal period’ (i.e. the period from 2010 to 2110) which indicates that limited erosion of this part of the frontage is expected even in the absence of defences, which would mean the likelihood of landward retreat of intertidal mudflat in the face of sea level rise would be very limited even without any Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

defences. As such, it is considered that the airport expansion proposals do not pose any significant risk of coastal squeeze. Coastal squeeze is therefore not an issue in this location and not directly relevant to this case given the Shoreline Management Plan coast defence policy and the continued effect of glacial unloading of the west coast. The estuary landward limit in this vicinity is clearly demarcated by low soft cliffs which are not in retreat. Furthermore, bathymetric analysis of the Mersey Estuary shows that the position of the channels do shift as does the location and distribution of intertidal habitats in response to fluvial water flows (much less significant factor) but more importantly storm events. Work for the Mersey Crossing and previously tidal energy studies show that the estuary is largely in equilibrium in its sediment budget. These matters are not of direct relevance to the proposed Green Belt release site allocated by Policy EC7 nor do they impact upon the robustness of the HRA. It is reasonable to conclude that the defence line would be held regardless to protect nationally significant airport infrastructure.

Q5.19 Given the plan HRA (CD30.2, page 33) outlines that further survey work would be necessary, and having regard to Natural England’s comments of July 2019 on the LJLA Shadow HRA (CD30.1a), what are the delivery timescale implications for the proposals in Policy EC7 and would this have wider ramifications for the plan strategy given LJLA is a key strand of the Liverpool SuperPort which in turn is a central plank of the overall economic strategy for the city and the wider city region (expansion of LJLA identified as a key spatial priority at paragraph 5.8 of the plan)? As described in the response to Q5.16 it is the City Council’s view, supported by its Advisors, MEAS and AECOM, that there is sufficient certainty provided at project stage. Ongoing survey work has taken place for a number of years by LJLA in order to inform its masterplan and has continued into 2019/20. This ongoing work has been strongly informed by the advice of MEAS and Natural England and will inform any future planning applications at the project level, as well as having already informed the plan level HRA. LCC, MEAS and Natural England will agree the scope of additional survey work and also the scope of the project specific HRA with the Airport to inform detailed development proposals. On the basis of the information to hand, there is no reason, to conclude that the principle of the expansion should therefore be resisted at plan level in the light of the plan level HRA and its assessment of FLH. With respect to delivery, the impacts of recent travel restrictions in response to the spread of COVID- 19 have undoubtedly affected the timescales originally expected to be delivered. However it is understood the position of LJLA as set out in the letter from Airport’s Chief Executive (please see Appendix 6 to this Hearing Statement) is that the effect will be to introduce an 18 to 24 month delay into the delivery of its masterplan aspirations. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Q5.20 Overall, is the HRA approach to LJLA suitably precautionary? The HRA approach to LJLA is suitably precautionary because of the account it takes of the robust policy protection mechanisms in the Local Plan as safeguards that will ensure no harm results from the expansion of the airport: a) EC7 makes Council support contingent on ‘appropriate assessment of the potential environmental impacts where such assessment has shown it necessary, the implementation of appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with this growth … With respect to internationally important sites (the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, Dee Estuary SAC, Dee Estuary SPA and Dee Estuary Ramsar Site, Liverpool Bay SPA and Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar Site), development will be required to include appropriate mitigation measures agreed with the City Council and informed by an up-to-date environmental assessment’. b) Policy GI5 will apply to the airport expansion as much as any other developments. Policy GI5 states that development would not be permitted if it has an adverse effect on integrity without demonstrating IROPI and No Alternatives. For clarity this is reiterated in supporting paragraph 7.73 specifically relating this requirement to the airport expansion. Liverpool City Council has therefore concluded that the Local Plan contains a robust policy framework that would ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site arose in practice from the expansion of Liverpool Airport, unless the applicant was able to demonstrate Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest and No Alternatives and was able to deliver adequate compensation. A fuller analysis of the detailed implications of LJLA proposals at the project stage when the proposals (including compensation proposals for loss of The Oglet) will be much further developed for planning applications, which have been outlined in the LJLA Masterplan. In reaching this view Liverpool City Council is mindful of Advocate- General Kokott’s 2opinion regarding a multi-tier planning process that: ‘It would …hardly be proper to require a greater level of detail in preceding plans [rather than planning applications] or the abolition of multi-stage planning and approval procedures so that the assessment of implications can be concentrated on one point in the procedure. Rather, adverse effects on areas of conservation must be assessed at every relevant stage of the procedure to the extent possible on the basis of the precision of the plan. This assessment is to be updated with increasing specificity in subsequent stages of the procedure’.

2 Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott, 9th June 2005, Case C-6/04. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Green Belt Please also see the Council’s response to the Inspector’s initial Question 51 in document LCC01A (pages 40-43) and Document CD31.0 ‘Case for the Expansion of LJLA’ Section 8. Q5.21 Do exceptional circumstances exist to alter the Green Belt at the Oglet in respect of proposals for the expansion of Liverpool John Lennon Airport having regard to the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF2012 paragraph 80? The City Council has received from the Airport a comprehensive evidence base (CD31 and CD31.1 – CD31.11a) which has been carefully scrutinised and then informed the preparation of the Draft Local Plan. Thess demonstrate that the removal of The Oglet from the Green Belt is necessary to enable the growth of LJLA. CD31 -The Case for Expansion( September 2019) presents the exceptional circumstances for amending the Green Belt boundary. It has regard to the five purposes of Green Belt and it refers to a number of supporting evidence base document that underpin the overall case, comprising: • Constraints and Requirements Main Document [CD31.1] and Constraints and Requirements Synopsis [CD31.2] • Economic Impact Assessment of Liverpool John Lennon Airport and its future growth plans [CD31.3] As set out in The Case for Expansion, taken together the following factors comprise exceptional circumstances to justify removal of land at The Oglet from the Green Belt: • the unique and strategic significance of LJLA, as an employer, an international gateway and an economic asset to the growth and regeneration of the City Region; • the drivers of growth in activity at the airport which would enable it to better serve the leisure and business passenger needs of the city region and reduce leakage of LCR residents to other airports outside the LCR and so reduce surface travel; • the significant social and economic benefits that expansion of LJLA would deliver over the Plan Period including very significant job creation (8,770 FTE jobs in the LCR; 14,360 FTE jobs across the North of England); economic growth (£605 million GVA in the LCR; £861 million GVA across the North of England) and a reduction in the need to travel to airports further afield; • the particular contribution these can make to the broader economic and regeneration ambitions of Liverpool and the LCR which is the 7th most deprived local authority area in England; • the absence of alternative sites capable of meeting this need; • the limited contribution of the land south of the runway to the purposes of Green Belt and the limited impact the proposals would have on the purposes of the Green Belt, and . Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

• The serious adverse consequences of the airport not being able to expand its current highly constrained estate – a concern which has been heightened by the likely long term societal effects of COVID 19.

Q5.22 The Airport Masterplan 2018 [CD31.11] identifies at Section 6, four uses that would take place on land at the Oglet. One is described as “other employment development – B2/B8 uses”. Policy EC7 part 2b refers to employment uses including logistics, advanced manufacturing and offices that seek proximity to the airport and its international connectivity. Do exceptional circumstances exist for such activities and is there any indicative or informed assessment of the intended land-take for such activities? The City Council notes that The Case for Expansion Report [CD31] looks at the type of employment uses that the land at The Oglet could accommodate, including uses directly related to the airport; other aviation and aerospace activities; and businesses and inward investors that cluster in such locations due to synergy with other occupiers and proximity to the airport and the services it provides. The essence of this evidence is that the provision of space for employment uses that require proximity to the airport are essential to its growth, which in turn is key to the prosperity of the LCR in general. This is strongly reflective of experience of airports elsewhere in the UK – for example Manchester and East Midlands airports. It is also noted that ‘The Case for Expansion’ (paragraphs 4.22 – 4.24) finds that this approach reflects the findings of Independent International Connectivity Commission (Independent International Connectivity Commission Report (Transport for the North. 2017) and is directly analogous with recent and planned development at Manchester Airport. Paragraphs 4.22 – 4.24 summarises the approach: “4.22 The ‘Independent International Connectivity Commission Report’, which was established by Transport for the North12 to examine the economic role of international connectivity for the North of England, confirms: ‘Airports have the potential to position themselves as linchpins for wider economic hubs, supporting the attraction of FDI. This may be through focusing on activities related to the core business, such as logistics or aircraft maintenance, or may be through more general business park activities, allowing companies to benefit from locating immediately adjacent to an airport’. This is entirely consistent with Government policy within the Airports National Policy Statement (see paragraph 5.3 below). 4.23 LJLA is well placed to further support growth of South Liverpool as an economic hub and support the ongoing economic regeneration of the LCR. The combination of a good strategic location within the UK; location within a growing city region economy; direct air access along with excellent connections to ports and the strategic surface transport network; and a strong, skilled local labour force make LJLA a potentially attractive location for a cluster of UK and international businesses in a variety of sectors including those which LCR’s economic strategy seeks to target. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

4.24 The land at the Oglet offers the only land in the LCR which could facilitate a clustering of aviation and aerospace related inward investment and economic development. It can provide the direct airside access and international connectivity that is often critical to such operators (in for example aviation services, the logistics and advanced manufacturing sectors) and capitalise upon the strategic location and competitive advantages of LJLA. These opportunities are unique to the airport location. There is no other airport within the LCR. Without such expansion other airports such as Manchester will inevitably secure those opportunities, to their benefit but to LCR’s detriment”.

Further detail on this is offered in the Constraints and Requirements Main Document [CD31.1], Section 7 (Strategic moves and land requirement - refer to paragraph 7.29 and figure 7.5).

Q5.23 What are the consequences were the Green Belt not altered at the airport? Is sufficient justification provided in Documents CD31.0, CD31.1 and CD31.2? Has the Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan tested a ‘do nothing’ option as an alternative option for Policy EC7? The City Council notes that Constraints and Requirements Main Document [CD31.1] and the Economic Impact Assessment [CD31.3] set out the consequences for LJLA and the Liverpool City Region of not altering the Green Belt. Section 5 the Economic Impact Assessment [CD31.3] explains that a failure to deliver the Local Plan allocation (and the amendment to the Green Belt boundary) would severely constrain LJLA’s growth potential and the realisation of these socio-economic benefits for the LCR will have wider impacts in the ability for LJLA to compete with rival airports. It is noted in particular that the effect would be to: • seriously undermine the future economic role of the Airport to the LCR, • to perpetuate and worsen existing unsustainable travel to more distant airports, and • Consequently curtail the wider economic potential of LJLA. With respect to alternative options, Section 5 of the Economic Impact Assessment [CD31.3] considers two alternative scenarios: (a) That LJLA is able to continue to compete and is able to optimise its use of non-Green Belt land. In this scenario which the Airport considers to be a ‘holding its own’ position the consequences are estimated to be the creation of c. 7,780 fewer FTE job and £531million less GVA by 2030 across the Liverpool City Region. This loss increases to between 12,410 fewer FTE jobs and £737 million less GVA annually across the North of England (see CD31.3 paras 5.4 to 5.11), and (b) That ongoing investment in competing airports harms LJLA’s position and it experiences a loss of airlines and routes. In this scenario LJLA’s Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

competitiveness is eroded by lack of expansion - is likely to result in the creation of c.8,580 fewer jobs and £576 million less GVA being added to the LCR economy compared to the planned expansion in accordance with Policy EC7. This negative impact increases to between 13,810 fewer FTE jobs and £817million less GVA annually across the North of England (see CD31.3 paras 5.12 to 5.26). This assessment is considered to support the exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land. Policy EC7 was assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Draft Liverpool Local Plan and, following a revision to the text, was reappraised in the SA of the Submission Draft Local Plan (CD8). The SA appraised the impact of not implementing the Submission Draft Local Plan (i.e. a do-nothing approach) against the existing environmental, social and economic characteristics of the area (i.e. the baseline situation set out in Appendix 3 of the SA Report Appendices [CD8.1]). Table 3.4 ‘Key sustainability issues and likely evolution without the Liverpool Local Plan’ sets out the key conclusions of this assessment. Therefore, the ‘do nothing’ scenario is the baseline that all policies are assessed against.

Q5.24 Are there exceptional circumstances to additionally alter the Green Belt at Hale Road and Alderfield Drive to further enable the LJLA proposals as requested by the airport? This is not necessary as the route alignment can be shown in the GB, this has been done by Halton in their Submission Draft – April 2020. If Liverpool removed Green Belt in these two locations it would then be inconsistent with that shown in the in Halton Local plan both current and in their submission draft Local Plan. Liverpool would propose an MM to show the limited amount of the potential route in its administrative area (see Appendix 5 to this Hearing Statement). Should as a result of the Examination of the Halton Local Plan land be removed from the Green Belt contiguous with the Green Belt in Liverpool, this could be addressed in a review of the Liverpool Local Plan.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Q5.25. Is there cross-boundary consistency to the Green Belt at this location with Halton Borough? Yes there is. Please also see the response to the question above. The extent of Green belt shown in the Liverpool and Halton’s submission draft Local Plan’s is contiguous. The image below, prepared by officers of Halton Council, displays the Policies Maps for both the Liverpool and Halton Submission Draft Local Plans. The Boundary between the two authorities is the thin black line. The Green Belt is depicted by thin green parallel vertical lines on the Liverpool Map and by thick parallel diagonal lines on the Halton Map.

Heritage Q5.26. Would the expansion of the airport in accordance with Policy EC7 result in any harm to the setting of heritage assets (Listed Buildings, conservation areas etc)? If so, how should any harm be categorized using the approach at NPPF2012 paragraph 134 (substantial or less than substantial)? What would be the degree of harm, if any, to the setting of Yew Tree Farmhouse and Speke Hall? Is it evidenced at a plan-making level, including through Sustainability Appraisal, that public benefits outweigh any heritage harm? The City Council notes that The Built Heritage Review [CD31.4] undertakes a robust project level assessment of the likely and potential impacts on identified heritage assets, including Yew Tree Farmhouse and Speke Hall. Section 4 of the Review provides a summary assessment of the significance of these assets (The Speke Estate, paragraph 4.10 to 4.16, and Yew Tree Farmhouse, paragraph 4.13). The impacts from the Master Plan on the significance of these heritage assets is then set out in Section 6. Speke Hall is addressed between paragraphs 6.11 to 6.15. Yew Tree Farmhouse is addressed between 6.6 and 6.9. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

The overall summary (paragraphs 6.19 to 6.20) concludes at paragraph 6.20 that the only potential heritage harm which could not be avoided by careful design of any proposed development would be to Yew Tree Farmhouse. This harm would be ‘less than substantial harm’ under the terms of the NPPF and would need to be weighed against the substantial public benefits of the delivery of the growth of the Airport in accordance with Policy EC7. In respect of the Local Plan SA, a mixed effect (minor positive/minor negative) was identified for SA objective 5 ‘To preserve enhance and manage the city’s rich diversity of cultural, historic and archaeological buildings, areas, sites and features and their settings’ in relation to Policy EC7. The justification text for the mixed effect identifies that the boundaries of the airport area in Liverpool are in close proximity to heritage assets including Speke Hall (Grade I Listed Building), the significance of which may be impacted upon negatively through the growth of the airport resulting in a minor negative effect in relation to SA objective 5. A minor positive effect was also identified as the policy requires that the impact on the historic and built environment should be addressed through any development proposal at the site. However against SA Objectives 14, the SA also notes ‘As set out in the supporting text of the policy the airport plays a key role in the economy of the City and wider region. While the policy supports the expansion of the existing runway to the south to comprise aviation facilities and aviation related Class B use development, any economic benefit from this provision is expected to be minimal in comparison to the effect that promoting the airport as an international transport hub would have on economic growth and local employment opportunities, including aviation-related uses, aerospace businesses, logistics, advanced manufacturing and offices. As the policy would contribute to achieving this aim a significant positive effect is expected on this SA objective.’

Climate Change Q5.27 Document CD31 (The case for expansion) addresses (briefly) matters of air quality but does not reference climate change. Has the impact of Policy EC7 in relation to potential effects on agreed goals on climate change been appropriately considered? Is it addressed as part of the integral sustainability appraisal process? The City Council notes that the Airport’s Master Plan [CD31.11] describes the sustainability measures that the Airport is implementing to encourage sustainable development and minimise any negative effects on climate changes from the expansion and operation of the Airport. These include the identification of land for renewable energy generation (solar array). It is also currently preparing a Net Zero Carbon Plan for 2040. It is also noted that the Airport, as part of its Environmental Management Strategy, has implemented a range of energy saving measures, which have resulted in significant annual carbon savings. The Airport is also currently working on it plans to deploy photovoltaic cells on buildings and land around the airport. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

It is further acknowledged that as a member of the Sustainable Aviation Organisation the Airport is committed to continue work with them to reduce the emissions from aircraft and support global agreements on aviation emissions. Sustainable Aviation works on behalf of the aviation industry to ensure that the growth of the sector is undertaken in a sustainable manner without compromising national commitments to climate change mitigation. Local Plan SA The SEA Regulations include ‘climatic factors’ within a wide spectrum of environmental issues that have to be considered when undertaking a SEA/SA. Appendix 2 of the SA Appendices (CD8.1) identifies key climate change plans, programmes and strategies that the SA and Local Plan have taken into account including the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014), the Paris Agreement (United Nations, 2015), the Air Quality Directive 2008, and, Planning Practice Guidance on Air Quality (2014) and Climate Change (2014). Appendix 3 of the SA Appendices (CD 8.1) outlines the baseline information in relation to climate change and identifies that the Department for Energy and Climate Change figures show generally decreasing trends for CO2 emissions in Liverpool from 2005 – 2015, a fall of 910.5kt in this period. The Industry and Commercial sector experienced the most significant fall in emissions followed by the Domestic sector, while the transport sector experienced the least reduction in emissions. Each option, including Policy EC7, was assessed against the following climate change mitigation related SA objectives:  SA Objective 4b: To protect and improve air quality.  SA Objective 9: To reduce the need to travel by car and improve choice and use of sustainable transport modes.

Mixed effects (positive and negative effects) were identified for policy EC7 in relation to SA Objectives 4b and 9. The policy supports growth at the Liverpool Airport area subject to development being satisfactorily compliant with measures to address potential environmental impacts. These measures include mitigation of air pollution impacts on adjacent residents and others in the vicinity of flightpaths as well as implementation of a sustainable surface access strategy. It expected that the policy would have a positive effect in terms of helping to reduce emissions from private cars traveling to the airport and the effects of air pollution on the population at large. This positive effect is combined with a negative effect as air quality in the City is likely to be adversely impacted upon from the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the growth of the airport and more flights arriving at and departing from this location. Therefore, on the basis of the above LCC considers that the effects on climate change have been considered throughout the SA.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Delivery and Implementation Q5.28 The Airport Masterplan is to 2050. What are the intentions/programme for development at LJLA during the plan period to 2033? A letter from the Airport’s Chief Executive (Appendix 6 to this Hearing Statement) sets out the intentions/programme for development at LJLA, particularly in light of COVID-19. In summary this sates that: a) Prior to the spread of COVID-19 to Europe LJLA has just recorded its 5th consecutive year of growth, just short of 5.1 million passengers. During the previous 3 years, over 30 new routes had been added to the airport. b) The Airport had identified physical constraints to its expansion both in the immediate future and over coming years [CD31.1]. It was actively preparing a strategy and programme of work to deliver growth and to resolve immediate shortcomings with the existing airport which have arisen due to the highly constrained nature of the airport’s estate. c) In anticipation of future growth the Airport remains committed to continuing to work upon the necessary surveys and evidence gathering in order to support such proposals and to bringing forward planning applications for necessary development in a timely manner. d) Looking ahead, LJLA sees no reason why after a short period of adjustment LJLA would not be able to achieve its medium and long term potential. Based on this it would be confident of achieving previous Master Plan levels of growth in passenger, cargo, business and general aviation activity around 18- 24 months later than previously forecast. e) Part of the concerns which have informed LJLA’s promotion of this scheme have been because of the very tight constraints which arise because of its existing land-holdings, given long term social consequences arising from Covid-19, the effect of those constraints will be even more acute with much greater pressure on LJLA to facilitate socially distanced queueing with the same limited floorspace. The City Council would also wish to inform the Inspector that it would like to propose modification to deal with rep 057/004/SLP571 from the Airport to show the Airport’s correct operational boundary. This is an area near Speke Hall Avenue which is currently designated as Primarily Industrial Area in the Submission Draft Local Plan. (Please see Appendix 7 to this Hearing Statement) Also an MM is proposed to deal with rep 057/009/SLP576 (please see Appendix 5 as referenced in Q5.24.) Q5.29 What is the status of the Eastern Access Transport Corridor (EATC)? Is this Project T9 in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2018 [Document CD19] which is described as “the new access to Liverpool John Lennon Airport” being funded by DfT? Does the scheme / proposal have consent? Yes it is scheme T9 in the 2018 IDP. However, as set out in the response to Question 8.1 (Matter 8, Issue 1) the January 2018 IDP (CD19) was updated in August 2019 (CD19.1) and subsequently checked in June 2020 (see Appendix 1 to Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Matter 8, Issue 1). The scheme, estimated to cost between £100m-£300m, is currently at Outline Business Case stage with funding anticipated from DfT. The Combined Authority is committed to the scheme and is providing significant funding (c. £500,000) to progress the EATC to Full Business Case. A Steering Group which comprises the Councils of Liverpool, Halton and Knowsley along with Merseytravel (the passenger transport executive for the city region) and LJLA. Consultants are being appointed to develop the design and business case. This will enable the scheme to access future national or local infrastructure funding programmes and progress through planning.

Policy EC8 Ports of Liverpool and Garston Q5.30. The ports are identified in the August 2019 HRA as known to be of value as functionally linked habitat for the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site and for Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site. The HRA also says similar in respect of the Liverpool Bay SPA (page 65 of Document CD30.2). Is the HRA justified in concluding that the Local Plan contains a policy framework that would ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of these sites from the expansion of the Ports of Liverpool and Garston from activities such as dredging, additional shipping, water quality/risk of fuel spillage and potential of invasive non-native species? Yes, the HRA is justified in concluding that the Local Plan contains a policy framework that would ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. As with Liverpool Airport, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between assessing Local Plan policy (which is about the principle of port growth in this area) and assessing the Master Plan and future planning application(s) or Harbour Revision Orders (which are about the details). The expansion of the Ports of Liverpool and Garston are a specific national priority identified in the National Policy Statement for Ports (2012). The Local Plan HRA discussed the potential implications of port expansion for European sites as they are understood at this strategic level. However, it is the Liverpool Local Plan policy regarding the ports that is the subject of the Local Plan HRA, rather than Peel Port’s Master Plan. Policy EC8 is essentially a development management policy in that it states that the Council will continue to support Peel’s (and the Government’s) ambitions for port development provided that they are sustainable. ‘Sustainable’ implicitly includes ensuring that any impact on the internationally important sites of the area is addressed. This is not only mentioned in Policy but is also explicitly cited in paragraph 7.87 (‘there should be no adverse effect on the integrity of any European designated site as a result of Port expansion’). The majority of any future expansion of the Ports of Liverpool and Garston would go through the Planning Inspectorate’s Development Consent Order process and the Marine Management Organisation’s Harbour Revision Order process and would not be consented by Liverpool City Council. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Bearing this in mind, it is possible to conclude no adverse effect on integrity on the basis that: a) Policy EC8 states that extension proposals will be supported provided they are sustainable; b) Policy EC8 states that ‘Proposals for the sustainable development of the Ports should: … comply with other relevant policies in the Local Plan; include measures to address the … impact on … internationally important sites …’ This would include compliance with Policy GI5; and c) Policy GI5 says that: ‘…Development which may result in a likely significant effect on an internationally important site must be accompanied by sufficient evidence to enable the Council to make a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Adverse effects should be avoided and/or mitigated to ensure that the integrity of internationally important sites is protected. Development which may adversely affect the integrity of internationally important sites will only be permitted where there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and suitable compensatory provision is secured. This also applies to sites and habitats outside the designated boundaries that support species listed as being important in the designations of the internationally important sites’. This policy therefore ensures that project-level HRA will adequately assess in-combination effects also from for example other projects which may be subject of policies within the Local Plan. Since the Port Master Plan proposals are intentionally very broad and high-level a fuller analysis of the implications of individual proposals would not be possible until the proposals were much further developed for planning applications.

Q5.31 Is the approach in Policy EC8 for the Port of Garston to support port- related activity deliverable in the context of allocating H19 for housing on adjacent land? ABP have a statutory duty to operate the Port of Garston. As such it would not promote development on its land, which would prejudice its continued port operations. ABP have previous experience based on previous sales of land north of Dock Road at the Port of Garston for housing. In addition, the future residential development on the land north of Dock will be informed by ABPs master planning for the Port of Garston (see Q6.24). ABP have said that the objective of this work is to set out a strategic vision and guidance on the future use and development of the Port of Garston, as well as informing the release of the land north of Dock Road for residential development. ABP also emphasise that as both the land owner and port operator, they are able to control the future residential development of the land north of Dock Road and ensure no conflict with port operations and development. ABP state that they will include legal requirements when the land is sold for residential development to safeguard the Port of Garston, with these likely to include the incorporation of a buffer between, Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

and separate access roads for, the port and residential uses, as well as acoustic mitigation measures. Given this the City Council considers that support for port related use and development at the Port of Garston under Policy EC8 is deliverable in the context of any future residential development on the adjacent land north of Dock Road.

Policies CC1, CC1a and CC2 – City Centre Main Office Area and Pumpfields Q5.32 A number of questions were initially raised by the Inspector [Document EX2b questions 12, 13 & 14) on Policies CC1 and CC2. In particular the policy approach to major buildings west of the A5036 (primarily ‘The Three Graces’) and land west of Vauxhall Road within the wider CC2 Pumpfields designation. The Council has responded in Document LCC01a. In light of the exchange of correspondence are there any further submissions on matters of soundness? Subject to the response to Q5.10 & Q5.11 above on overall employment supply, does the approach to the extent of land at CC2 Pumpfields remain justified? The City Council considers that the approach to the extent of the employment land remains justified and does not have anything to add to its response to Questions 36 of the Inspector’s Initial Questions and Issues, as set out in LCC01A (see Appendix 3 of this Hearing Statement). The City Council does not have anything to add to its response to Question 12 of the Inspector’s Initial Questions and Issues. Policy CC3 – Knowledge Quarter Q5.33 Is the boundary of the Knowledge Quarter soundly based having regard to the Council’s response in LCC01a to the Inspector’s Initial Questions 15 & 16 and the additional 2019 material provided by the three city-based universities in documents CD32-34? For knowledge-based facilities and uses in the city centre outside of the Knowledge Quarter, would amendments to other policies of the plan provide appropriate certainty? (Please see proposed main modifications at pages 47-49 of document LCC02a in respect of Policy CC16 (Cultural Quarter) and Policy CC18 (St George’s Quarter). The City Council consider that the boundary of the Knowledge Quarter is soundly based, and do not have anything to add to its response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions 15 and 16 set out on LCC01a (see Appendix 4 to this Hearing Statement). In addition it is considered that the proposed modification to Policy CC16 and Policy CC18 as set out in CD LCC02a will provide certainty, in supporting knowledge based/ university uses. Q5.34 Where there are masterplans and proposals to expand, consolidate and enhance university facilities in and around the city centre would the plan as submitted inhibit or frustrate these strategies? What is the timeframe for implementation? Are these schemes funded/committed? Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

The City Council’s response to the Inspector’s Initial Questions 15 and 16 set out in LCC01a (see Appendix 4 to this Hearing Statement) sets out the position of the 3 Universities at that time and can be summarised as follows: 1. The University of Liverpool is the only one of the three universities to have published, in May 2019, a detailed Estates Masterplan Strategy

2. Liverpool John Moores University’s (LJMU) current estate is centred on three primary campuses: a. City Centre (Byrom St/Great Crosshall St/Tithebarn St – straddles KQ and St. George’s Quarter) b. Mount Pleasant (within KQ) c. IM Marsh (Aigburth) LJMU plans to consolidate and relocate a number of existing facilities into existing and proposed buildings to create a more campus-style environment. In light of this strategy LJMU has or will have surplus sites and assets outside the city centre at IM Marsh Campus and FL Calder Site. LJMU have also indicated that it is considering future expansion plans to the north of the City Centre (CD33) but to date there are no published Masterplans or Strategies.

3. Liverpool Hope University’s main campus is located in Childwall. It also has assets in the City Centre. Policy CC3 KQ boundary was drawn to specifically include the University’s Shaw Street Campus. LHU has indicated that it has development and expansion plans in relation to a number of vacant heritage assets in the Shaw St Conservation Area. These plans are aimed at restoring these buildings to productive, optimum viable use for education purposes. (CD34). LHU also indicate that they would wish to see their Childwall campus allocated as Mixed Use and included in the Knowledge Quarter. The City Council has in preparing the City Centre policies of the Local Plan sought to recognise the diversity of roles and functions played by the various users of land across the City Centre and avoid taking a single perspective. The City Council does not consider that the Local Plan policies will inhibit or frustrate any of the University Strategies. The City Council’s position is set out in LCC01a (see Appendix 4 to this Hearing Statement) and in LCC02a modifications are proposed to policies CC16 and CC18. In addition: 1. The City Council acknowledges that not all of LJMU’s city centre assets lie within the KQ boundary, this is also the case for the University of Liverpool. The City Council is not however of the view that this will be damaging and inhibit any growth plans as and when they are published

2. The City Council acknowledges that LHU has assets both within the City Centre as well as at its campus in Childwall. However, the City Council does not consider it appropriate to include this campus within the Knowledge Quarter which is a City Centre specific designation. The City Council does however acknowledge that LHU’s role as a Key Educational Asset and as a Stakeholder within the Knowledge Quarter should be referenced in the Local Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Plan and would be happy to address this by way of a proposed change for example to the supporting text of policy CC3 at paragraph 6.67 as follows:

6.67 The University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University are key educational assets within the area, and Liverpool Hope University has a campus on Shaw Street. and as such Future development and expansion of the Universities will be supported. It is recognised that in addition to new educational facilities the Universities may also require additional facilities to support their operation such as office/ research facilities, ancillary retail and leisure facilities to meet day to day needs, and student accommodation. This policy supports such uses subject to compliance with other plan policies.

3. The policies pertaining to the areas surrounding the Knowledge Quarter especially the St. George’s Quarter Policy CC18 and the Cultural Quarter Character Area Policy CC16, are not prejudicial to knowledge based uses. . The City Council propose a modification to this policy and CC18 (see LCC02a), and consider that these policies as amended together with CC3 and the Local Plan as a whole, subject to modifications which seek to respond to representations from the University of Liverpool (see point 4 below), will provide support for the City’s universities including the intrinsic links between existing campus areas

4. The City Council acknowledge representations received from the University of Liverpool, and have undertaken dialogue with the university in respect of these. As a result the City Council wish to propose modifications to the following sections of the Local Plan:  City Centre Spatial Portrait (KQ section)  City Centre Vision  City Centre Priorities  Knowledge Quarter Priorities  Policy CC3  Explanation to Policy CC3.

The modifications that the City Council would like the Inspector to consider are set out below and respond to following representation from P4 Planning on behalf of University of Liverpool:  108/003/SLP131  108/005/SLP132  108/007/SLP133  108/006/SLP134  108/006/SLP134  108/007/SLP135  108/008/SLP136

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

1. City Centre Spatial Portrait – KQ section 6.10 The Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool), which includes London Road District Centre and the Fabric District, Islington, is home to a concentration of knowledge economy assets. These include the University of Liverpool, Royal University Hospital and Liverpool John Moores University. They make an important contribution to the City and regional economy, particularly in terms of knowledge-based industries including bio-sciences, health-related research and digital technology. Together this "Knowledge Quarter" (KQ Liverpool) provides a concentration of expertise, knowledge and wealth-creating potential, generating £1bn for Liverpool each year, or 15% of Liverpool’s GVA: it supports some 14,000 jobs, around 7% of the City's total. The area includes the 40 hectares of the University of Liverpool’s main campus, as well as The Local Plan also includes the LJMU Byron Street Campus within the Knowledge Quarter which forms part of the wider Knowledge Quarter Mayoral Development Zone (MDZ) and is a key investment area for economic growth 6.11 In 2011, The Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool) SIF was published, alongside an Action Plan, to provide guidance and recommendations and to identify opportunities, for the delivery of physical regeneration, development and investment within the area. Updating the SIF 'Bringing the Vision to Life' was published in October 2016, making clear that the Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool) is important, not just to the future economic success of Liverpool, but to the re-balancing of the economy across the UK. The update sets out a vision for KQ Liverpool and how it is intended to establish one of the world’s leading innovation districts which will create a place of innovation and discovery in science, technology, education, medicine and culture. 6.12 Key projects that have been completed within the area or are coming forward include: Lime Street improvements; University of Liverpool Masterplan, Copperas Hill (LJMU Masterplan); Student accommodation; Material Innovation Factory; Link Creative Campus; BioCampus: £429m Royal Hospital Redevelopment; Expansion of the School of Tropical Medicine; Redevelopment of Pembroke Place and Islington; further investment in Science, Engineering, Law and Justice and lecture facilities at the University of Liverpool and the Expansion of the Life Science Park and Liverpool Science Park. Knowledge Quarter Gateway (KQ Gateway) and Paddington Village represent further phases of growth for the Knowledge Quarter. A Spatial Regeneration Framework (2017) has been produced for Paddington Village to guide its redevelopment. The area has been chosen as the Northern Headquarters for the Royal College of Physicians. 6.13 The Knowledge Quarter includes two Conservation Areas, adjoins the boundaries of several others and the western part of the area lies within the Buffer Zone of the World Heritage Site. It also includes 64 Listed Buildings including three which are Grade II*. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

6.14 The Islington and London Road area is in a strategic location on the approach to the City Centre from the east, in close proximity to Lime Street Gateway, Royal Hospital, and the Cultural Quarter. The Islington area is characterised by primarily low-density warehousing and wholesalers in the streets between London Road and Islington with discount retail units to London Road. The most prominent and longstanding businesses to be associated with the area are those relating to fabric, making the area the historic Fabric District of Liverpool. 6.15 London Road District Centre retains a strong discount retail function with TJ Hughes and Lidl acting as anchors. A market operates several days a week on Monument Place. There is a range of facilities within the area which could support a mixed residential community: including supermarkets, ethnic supermarkets; a GP out of hours service; a chemist; a dentist; a wide range of shops including a department store and Post Office; and good transport links. The sector also has a significant presence in the area. 6.16 The key planning issues within the area include:  Increasing the economic potential of the Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool), and attracting and retaining high growth businesses and research companies;  Supporting the delivery of the Paddington Village project;  Supporting the delivery of high quality, world-class university campuses  Supporting the delivery of the KQ Gateway project;  Supporting the retail function of the London Road Shopping Area and uses that support the Knowledge Quarter;  Improving public realm, connectivity (including walking, cycling and public transport) and green infrastructure across the area;  Ensuring the appropriate type and scale of residential uses within Islington including student accommodation  Supporting the business community of the Fabric District, Islington and ensuring the area builds upon its key strengths and makes a positive contribution to the sustainable growth of the City;  Bringing under-utilised and vacant land/ buildings back into productive use; and  Ensuring that any new development responds to its local context and safeguards those elements which contribute to the significance of the City’s heritage assets.

2. Liverpool City Centre Vision By 2033, Liverpool City Centre’s role and function as a thriving regional centre for economic, retail, leisure, tourist and cultural uses will have been strengthened. It will be the primary location for some of the City’s key economic sectors with a world class knowledge economy and a vibrant creative industries sector. More job opportunities will have been created for the City’s existing and future residents. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

Its status as the key city and sub-regional shopping centre will have been protected and enhanced through the continued refurbishment and redevelopment of existing floorspace within the Main Retail Area, and its cultural, tourist and leisure offer will have continued to expand, including within the Cavern Quarter. All the City Centre’s residential neighbourhoods will provide a quality, diverse and affordable housing offer with strong connections to sustainable transport links. The distinct City Centre neighbourhoods will be well connected and integrated. Cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and the public realm will have been enhanced, ensuring strong connectivity and accessibility for all across the centre, thus supporting economic growth and the visitor economy. The public transport network will have been improved. The City Centre will have become a greener and healthier place - existing open/ green spaces such as St John’s Gardens, St James Gardens and Chavasse Park will continue to provide important open spaces and will have been enhanced to maximise their use. Opportunities for new and improved spaces including roof gardens and pocket parks will have been maximised.The Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and the other buildings and spaces of heritage value will have been conserved and enhanced, new buildings will be of a high standard of sustainable design. Comprehensive energy and heat plans and energy efficient retrofit will be at the heart of creating an economically resilient and attractive city centre. The eastern parts of the City Centre will have been strengthened as the focus for knowledge-based uses, broadly centred on the three University campuses universities, the new Royal Liverpool University Teaching Hospital and the School of Tropical Medicine (the “Knowledge Quarter” (KQ Liverpool). The bio-sciences sector and creative digital industries will have expanded, and significant physical change will have taken place in the Copperas Hill and Hall Lane areas and Paddington Village where there are major development opportunities and where investment is already underway. The Fabric District, Islington will have become a vibrant mixed use area with a focus on makers, manufacturing and light employment uses. The transformation of the Main Office Area will have happened. Business needs will have been met and opportunities will have been maximised including in Princes Dock and King Edwards Triangle. The early phases of the Liverpool Waters scheme will have been delivered. Pumpfields will have been developed as a vibrant mixed use extension to the City Centre. The Baltic Triangle and Ropewalks area will have been enhanced as vibrant locations for creative and digital industries and independent cultural attractions, with warehouses brought back into use and greater connectivity with other parts of the City Centre. The City Centre Waterfront will be a world-class leisure and visitor destination, maximising the use of waterspaces, and full advantage will have been taken of the development opportunities at Princes Dock, Kings/ Queens Dock and Central Docks. Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

The Ten Streets area will have undergone significant transformation for creative businesses. St George’s Quarter and Hope Street area will have been further developed as significant, high quality cultural and visitor destinations.

3. City Centre Priorities

 To protect and strengthen Liverpool City Centre’s role as a vibrant and distinctive regional centre.  To encourage and facilitate further economic growth. Support will be given to the financial, business and professional services sector, life sciences sector, knowledge-based and creative and digital industries.  To support the continued development of a world-class knowledge economy and university research and education campus at the University of Liverpool  To support investment and regeneration within the City's Waterfront and its fringes.  To focus on ensuring a diverse, high quality residential offer that meets the needs of a diverse community.  To protect areas of existing family housing and ensure sustainable, well connected, inclusive and high quality distinctive residential neighbourhoods.  To protect and enhance Liverpool City Centre’s Main Retail Area as a regionally significant shopping destination and ensure it maintains its position in the national rankings.  To support further growth of leisure, tourist and cultural facilities including at the Waterfront, Hope Street, Ropewalks, Baltic Triangle, Williamson Square and St George’s Quarter.  To build upon Liverpool's positive reputation as a vibrant and world class destination for night time entertainment.  To protect and enhance the City Centre’s heritage assets and secure development of a high standard of design that integrates well with the existing urban fabric.  To protect existing open space assets and maximise opportunities for enhancing the green infrastructure resource including the creation of green corridors.  To support the provision of a permanent cruise liner terminal.  To seek to provide a coach park with drop off and pick up facilities to serve the key cultural and tourist attractions.  To secure improvements to connectivity, walking and cycling routes, the pedestrian environment and public realm.  To open public access to the Waterfront by creating a linked cycle and pedestrian route along the River Mersey.

Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

4. Knowledge Quarter Priorities

 To support and develop existing facilities including the Royal Liverpool Hospital, Science Park and the Universities to create a globally recognised hub at the forefront of knowledge leadership  To attract new businesses and encourage existing businesses to grow, particularly those which would strengthen the Quarter (KQ Liverpool), thus creating more jobs.  To support the development of Paddington Village and KQ Gateway as expansion areas for the Knowledge Quarter  To support the delivery of vibrant, sustainable and attractive University campuses including for the University of Liverpool  To improve the public realm and environmental quality including enhanced green infrastructure.  To support ancillary uses and infrastructure, particularly in the Islington/ London Road area which support the growth of the Knowledge economy including hotels, neighbourhood shops and services.  To support the redevelopment of the Fabric District, Islington for a vibrant mix of uses with the primary focus on makers, manufacturing and light employment uses.  To improve connections across the area and to residential communities in North Liverpool, specifically pedestrian and cycle links, to create a safer and more attractive environment.  To ensure Islington makes a positive contribution to the sustainable growth of the City.  To protect and enhance the function of London Road District Centre

5. Policy CC3 The Knowledge Quarter 1. Within the Knowledge Quarter, as identified on the City Centre Policies Map, a mix of uses will be supported to create a world-class place of innovation and discovery in science, technology, education, medicine and culture. Specifically: a. Offices, research and development and laboratory facilities (B1 Class Uses) b. Education, cultural and community uses c. Residential dwellings and student accommodation d. Ancillary uses and supporting infrastructure which are important to the future development and operation of the science, technology, education, medicine and culture assets in the area, subject to other plan policies. 2. Proposed development within the area should demonstrate its contribution to: a. promoting the clustering of knowledge economy assets and the bringing together of complementary uses; Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

b. attracting and retaining innovative businesses and/or the fostering of start-up knowledge-based businesses; c. place-making, including the enhancement of the public realm and green infrastructure assets; and d. improving connectivity both physically (particularly for pedestrians and cyclists) and digitally. 3. Proposals which enhance the area’s existing science, technology, education, medicine and cultural assets will be supported including: a. An extension of the Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool) onto the former Archbishop Blanch site, to create a new "urban village"- Paddington Village b. KQ Gateway (Area bounded by Mount Pleasant, Brownlow Hill, Lime Street and Renshaw Street) c. Development of commercial laboratory space through the delivery of the BioCampus d. Expansion of existing facilities for the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine e. Redevelopment of the Pembroke Place area of the Islington Quarter to support and enhance the hospital and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine plans f. Redevelopment of the Copperas Hill Site by Liverpool John Moores University g. The delivery of a globally connected University of Liverpool campus to facilitate a transformative approach to learning, teaching and research 4. Development proposals within that part of the Knowledge Quarter lying in the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone should:- a Ensure that they do not compromise any of the key views of the landmark buildings and the strategic and local vistas having regard to those identified in the World Heritage Site SPD. b. Continue or reinstate historic building lines.

Explanation 6.65 This policy seeks to ensure that the Knowledge Quarter (KQ Liverpool) is a key growth area and that the area's economic potential and ability to attract and retain research companies and high growth businesses is maximised. The area forms part of the wider Knowledge Quarter Mayoral Development Zone, as shown on the Plan below, which is principally concerned with attracting further investment. The Knowledge Quarter boundary for the Local Plan covers a smaller area than the MDZ area as it is based on that in the City Centre SRF. Parts of the MDZ fall within other Matter 5 / Liverpool City Council

character areas including the Cultural Quarter and Pumpfields, which are covered by other Local Plan policies. 6.66 There are plans to extend the Knowledge Quarter by creating a new urban village, known as “Paddington Village”, specialising in life and medical sciences through the redevelopment of the former Archbishop Blanch site, near to Royal Liverpool University Hospital and the University of Liverpool. This policy supports the delivery of this together with other key projects such as the KQ Gateway. The Policy also supports the vision set out in the KQ Liverpool document 'Bringing the Vision to Life' (October 2016), establishing the area as one of the world’s leading innovation districts. 6.67 The University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moores University are key educational assets within the area, and as such future development and expansion of the Universities will be supported. The University of Liverpool is currently undertaking investment to deliver its strategic capital investment strategy and Masterplan to enhance the built environment and develop an outstanding 21st Century city centre campus, which plays a key role in the City of Liverpool. Future investment in the Knowledge Quarter, in addition to that proposed by the University, will also serve to attract and retain students and research practitioners. It is recognised that in addition to new educational facilities the Universities may also require additional facilities to support their operation such as office/ research facilities, ancillary retail and leisure facilities to meet day to day needs, and student accommodation. This policy supports such uses subject to compliance with other plan policies. 6.68 The City Centre SIF proposes that investment priorities should be supplemented by enabling infrastructure to improve the quality of the environment, ensure safer and more legible connections, and improved energy planning. This policy includes criteria to ensure that development proposals contribute to achieving this.