Summary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

Report to: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 25th September 2018

Subject: DC/2018/02240 34 Upper Aughton Road, Birkdale, Southport, PR8 5ND

Proposal: Erection of 8 dwellinghouses following the demolition of the former Blundell Arms public house

Applicant: Mr. Steve Gascoigne Agent: Mr. Luke Cowing RAL Architects Limited

Ward: Birkdale Ward Type: Full Application - Minor

Summary

This proposal seeks consent for the erection of 8 dwellinghouses following the demolition of the existing building on the site, The Blundell Arms, within a primarily residential area of Birkdale. The main issues to consider are the principle of development, the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset, the impact on the character of the area, the impact on the living conditions of future and neighbouring properties and the impact on highway safety. On balance it is considered that the benefits arising from the proposal outweigh the loss of the non-designated heritage asset and it is therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

Case Officer Neil Mackie

Email [email protected]

Telephone 0345 140 0845 (option 4)

Application documents and plans are available at: http://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PJQCA9NWIK100 Site Location Plan The Site

A two-storey detached building with lawful use as a public house, formerly trading as The Blundell Arms, fronting on to Upper Aughton Road with Clarence and Everton Roads flanking the site to the north and south respectively. The site lies within a primarily residential area of Birkdale.

History

Previous applications on this site related to its use as a public house and not for residential development and are not of relevance to this proposal.

The Blundell Arms was added to the list of Assets of Community Value on 14th April 2017 but was subsequently removed as an Asset of Community Value on 25th September 2018 following the disposal of the site.

Consultations

Conservation Officer The proposal site which affects the former Blundell Arms Public House is identified as a non- designated heritage asset due to its historic interest and value to the community as a social venue when in use as a public house.

Whilst bringing the building back into use as it was intended would be the preferred option, followed by conversion, it is understood that the recent fire has caused extensive damage to the building.

With any proposal affecting a non-designated heritage asset it is a balanced judgement regarding loss against the significance of the heritage asset. The fire damage is likely to have damaged many features and fabric, therefore having a harmful impact on the integrity of the building.

Any new development on the site should take some reference from the architectural detailing of the existing building (red brick, slate, cills and headers), which contributes to the character of the surrounding residential area with its Victorian houses. This would help to achieve a harmonious design which is consistent with the local vernacular.

Highways Manager There are no objections to the proposal in principle as there are no highway safety implications.

Each dwelling will have two off street car parking spaces, which is an acceptable level of provision given its reasonably central location with bus routes and rail station in the vicinity. In addition, the proposed new properties will require an electric charging point in accordance with Sefton's SPD 'Sustainable Travel and Development'. The existing vehicular accesses to this site will become redundant, and as such there will be a requirement to reconstruct the footway. In addition, new vehicular accesses will need to be introduced to serve the parking to each of the dwellings. Given the alterations, it will be necessary to fully reconstruct a 2.0m footway, as well as reposition lighting columns and telephone box, around the whole of the site wholly at the applicant’s expense.

A package of off-site highway works will be required to consist of the provision of tactile paving on key pedestrian routes at the junctions of Upper Aughton Road and Clarence Road and Upper Aughton Road and Everton Road.

There will also be the need to upgrade the existing bus stops on either side of the road adjacent to the site.

Due to the location of the nearby junctions, a construction traffic management plan will be required.

Environmental Health Manager No objection.

Flooding and Drainage Manager No objection subject to a condition being attached to approval requiring the submission and approval of a surface water sustainable drainage system.

United Utilities No objection to the proposal subject to conditions being added to approval requiring foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems and the submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme.

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service The applicant has submitted a Bat emergence/re-entry survey report in accordance with Local Plan policy NH2 (Inspection and assessment for bats and breeding birds with dusk survey results, Demolition followed by redevelopment, Blundell Arms, 34 Upper Aughton Road, Southport, Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd, 4 June 2019). The survey meets BS 42020:2013 and is acceptable.

The report states that no evidence of bat roosting was found. The Council does not need to consider the proposals against the three tests (Habitats Regulations).

The existing building on site does however have numerous potential bat roost features which will be lost once the existing building is demolished. To mitigate for this loss details of bat boxes (e.g. number, type and location on an appropriately scaled plan) that will be erected on the site for agreement with the Council are required. This can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition. The proposed development will result in the loss of bird breeding habitat and Local Plan policy NH2 applies. To mitigate for this loss, details of bird nesting boxes (e.g. number, type and location on an appropriately scaled plan) that will be erected on the site for agreement with the Council are required. This can be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

Neighbour Representations

35 letters were sent to neighbouring properties on Clarence Road, Everton Road and Upper Aughton Road on 8th January 2019. These properties, along with other third parties who made representations, were notified again on the 25th July 2019 following the receipt of amended plans.

Objections

A petition with 109 signatories objecting to the proposal has been submitted, endorsed by Councillor Brodie-Browne.

The points of objection relating to the loss of the public house are that it will be the loss of a facility that once provided:

- A popular venue for families who enjoyed televised sports, live acts, talent competitions, DJs, karaoke, quiz nights and socialising with friends and family - A regular venue for local people to celebrate special occasions in its large function room - Hosting Saturday and Sunday league football teams, pool teams, mixed & women- only darts teams and dominoes teams - Hosting for a pensioner's bingo club and a meeting place for vulnerable adults - Hosting for community fun days, scooter rallies and bungee jumping events - Long term employment for adults with Special Education Needs - The original home for 38 years to the Bothy Folksong Club, from the Club's inception in 1965.

The petition then states what their alternative use would provide, but such matters are not material considerations as this proposal must be assessed against what has been submitted and not against what has not been submitted. Similarly, a large number of the following objections promote an alternative community use but this cannot be given any weight in the consideration of this application.

43 letters of objection have been received, 37 of which are from various roads within Southport along with one from Formby, one from Manchester and four from unnamed properties. As above, any comments regarding supporting an alternative use must be disregarded but the following material considerations are raised:

- The loss of the public house is contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as it would remove a valued facility - Loss of a facility is queried given the increase in housing development within Southport - Loss of the public house reduces employment in the area - Loss of the only family pub in the area - Loss of a meeting place has a detrimental impact on the quality of life/health of the community - Loss of the building detrimentally impacts fond memories of the area - The refurbishment and reuse of the building would be more beneficial to the character of the area than its demolition - Too many pubs and community buildings (such as libraries) are being lost in Southport - Concern about the impact of the development on the living conditions of properties on Clarence Road with particular regard to poor outlook and loss of light. - The Blundell Arms is a great example of a local vernacular style and will be replaced by very ordinary generic houses - The vernacular of Birkdale is being weakened/watered down with such new developments replacing older buildings - The development will be out of character with the area compared to the wonderful old building - The retention of the pigeon racing club will result in an incongruous development - The demolition of the building will reduce habitat/roosting for bats - Queried the extent and detail of the submitted street views (subsequently amended) - No need for further housing in Southport

Other non-material considerations such as the profit to be generated by the developer or concern over development elsewhere in Southport and concern that such development is for visitors rather than residents have also been raised.

Support

A petition in support of the proposal, with 30 signatories, and endorsed by Councillor Brough, has been submitted in support of the proposal.

In addition, 2 letters of support have been provided from properties on Clarence Road and Upper Aughton Road. Points of support are limited to the proposal will improve the area and help with regeneration. One of the representations also cautions against the impacts on ecology and laments the loss of trees from the site.

Policy Context

The application site lies within an area designated as Primarily Residential in the Sefton Local Plan which was adopted by the Council in April 2017. Assessment of the Proposal

The main issues to consider in respect of this proposal are the principle of development, the impact on the character of the area, the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, the impact on living conditions of neighbouring properties, the living conditions to be provided to future occupiers and the impact on highway safety.

Principle of Development

As the application site lies within an area designated as primarily residential within the 2017 Sefton Local Plan, policy HC3 'Residential Development and Primarily Residential Areas' is relevant. This policy states that new residential development will be permitted in residential areas where the development is consistent with other Local Plan policies. The consideration of other issues (outlined above) will determine whether the principle of development can be supported and if the proposal is acceptable or not.

This policy also requires new development to achieve a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare, with exceptions made where the provision of infrastructure within the site would make this undeliverable or this density would cause harm to the character of the immediate area. As the application proposes 8 dwellings and the application site is 0.2ha in size this would result in a density of 40 dwellings per hectare, which is acceptable.

Character of the Area

Local Plan policy EQ2 'Design' only permits development where it responds positively to the character, local distinctiveness and form of its surroundings. This policy also requires development to, amongst other things, integrate well with existing street patterns, protect the amenity of those within and adjacent to the site and make a positive contribution to their surroundings through the quality of their design in terms of scale, height, form, massing, style, detailing, landscaping and use of materials. This approach is consistent with the aims and objectives of the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly paragraphs 127 and 130.

In order to assess the impact the proposal has upon the character of the area, the characteristics must first be identified and this is achieved through the benefit of site visits as well as having regard to the settlement character plans that support Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Design'.

The settlement character plan for Southport shows that the development site falls within the 'Victorian Edwardian Semis' character zone that maintains "tight rectilinear1 grid-iron pattern of [Southport town] centre" and that the properties in this area are generally:

- 2-3 storey with short front gardens & larger rear plots. Front gardens enclosed by boundary walls

1 Development that consists of, or is contained by, straight roads or boundaries. This is often typical of traditional terraced housing, built before 1919. - Use of special shaped bricks & stonework to give detail - Rectilinear block pattern with some industrial uses within blocks.

The general approach set out above is readily seen along Upper Aughton Road and surrounding highways, where low level brick boundary walls is the predominant boundary treatment and the properties tend to be positioned close to the pavement. Properties to corners or in other prominent locations have additional detailing through the use of bay windows and stonework/detailed brick work atop windows/doors so as to ensure that there is visual interest to both elevations.

Later additions or replacement development within the area have broadly conformed in part or in whole to the prevailing form with a particular regard to the layout of development and the use of brick boundary walls.

The building subject to this proposal follows the form of traditional properties within the area through the use of facing brick and slate, along with some minor brick detailing around the windows. Large openings and individually lettered signage to the Clarence Road highway provide interest (albeit lessened by the box extension to the side) and, as seen from past streetview imagery, the use of a bay window and retention of low level brick walls replicated neighbouring development. The building has declined since its closure, with the securing of windows and the growth of weeds (now hidden partly behind high level solid hoarding) but it still retains many of the features that are characteristic of the area and would be expected of a large building in a prominent location.

It was considered that the proposal as originally submitted was unacceptable with regards to its impact on the character of the area. The Clarence Road elevation was poor and would be a downgrade from the existing building, which properly addresses this corner. The plans did not properly reflect the building line along Clarence Road, which would have caused significant harm. The use of standard fencing to enclose the rear garden to Plot 6 would be detrimental to the street scene and not appropriate to this prominent position. Similarly, the side elevation of Plot 6 would detract from the street scene providing little of interest, which is worse than the current arrangement. Similar concerns were raised with the impacts of Plot 8 on Everton Road in that there was lack of interest to the side elevation and that by abutting the highway it didn't maintain the sense of spaciousness/separation that is consistent with corner developments in the area.

The above issues were considered by the agent for the application and amended drawings were then provided, which was subject of appropriate notification and consultation. The amended drawings shows a greater consideration of the form and layout of the development. The proposed dwellings now incorporate brick detailing to headers, the use of red brick and dark roofing along with modern interpretations of bays. Interest is provided to the side elevations of the two properties side on to Clarence and Everton Roads (the Type B dwellings in Plots 6 and 8) through the use of modest two-storey gable topped extensions that mimic the bays to the existing property. When viewed front on from Upper Aughton Road the run of Plots 6, 7 & 8 show a degree of symmetry with the projecting gable to the front of Plot 7 flanked by the two-storey projections/modern bays to the front of Plots 6 & 8. The boundary treatment to the front of the properties has also been upgraded from standard fencing to brick walls, which is more appropriate to this area. However, the submitted plans indicate fencing to be used to divide the front gardens/parking areas within the development when a key characteristic of the area is of brick walls to the front of properties (as a boundary to the highway and between properties). This would be unacceptable and as such amended plans have been sought to address this. The rear gardens to Plots 6 and 8 will be secured by 0.9m high red brick walls with 1.8m high piers and infill railings. Behind the railings will be shrub planting to form a hedge that will provide privacy to the properties over time. This approach echoes the circa 1.8m brick wall to Clarence Road and Everton Road while also demonstrating that this is a residential and not a commercial development. If these fences were dark stained then this may be acceptable on balance although brick walls/mature hedgerows would be reflective of the development to be lost and be more appropriate to the character of the area and such improvements can be secured by conditions.

The concern regarding the position of Plot 3 in front of properties to Clarence Road has also been considered by the agent with a stepped building line now shown on the revised site plan, in line with the stepped frontage to neighbouring development along this highway.

On balance it is therefore considered that the proposal, subject to the submission of amended plans providing appropriate boundary treatments is acceptable with regards to its impact on the character of the area.

Non-designated Heritage Asset

Objections received to this proposal show that members of the public considered that the existing building along with its lawful use as a public house contributed to their heritage. As there were concerns over the loss of this notable building, the Council considered that the building could be considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and weight will therefore be given to this.

The agent for the application queried this and countered that as the building was no longer on the register for assets of community value (addressed below) this therefore meant it could not be a non-designated heritage asset. The agent was informed of the difference between these two types of asset and while expressing some concern that all properties that were not formally listed could be considered non-designated heritage assets was informed that an assessment by the Authority of this matter was required.

Local Plan policy NH15 'Non-designated Heritage Assets' states that "development affecting a ... non-designated heritage asset or its setting will be permitted where the aspects of the asset which contribute to its significance are conserved or enhanced" and at a national level the NPPF states in paragraph 197 that "the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be considered in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset." It is evident that this proposal would fail to comply with policy NH15 as the demolition of the building would neither conserve nor enhance aspects of the asset that contribute to its significance. This will be considered as part of the planning balance.

Living Conditions

Neighbouring properties

The proposed development will not give rise to overlooking of neighbouring habitable room windows as scaled from the submitted site plan. From base Ordnance Survey plans (as properties on Everton Road are not fully shown on the site plan) the proposed dwellings will be in excess of 21m from habitable room windows and more than 10.5m from any rear garden. Given the orientation of the dwellings it will not give rise to overshadowing and the position of Plot 3 in relation to the neighbouring Clarence Court will not result in a poor outlook from ground or first-floor windows.

On this point the proposal is acceptable

Future occupiers

All of the private garden areas exceed the minimum sizes required by the Council's guidance. The side elevation of Plot 5 is more than 12m away from any direct habitable room windows at Plot 7, which ensures that there is reasonable outlook from this property. It is likely that Plots 4 and 5 may give rise to overshadowing of the gardens to Plots 6 & 7 in late afternoon/evening in spring/autumn but this will be apparent to any future occupier.

Highway Safety

Sufficient visibility is achieved for each vehicle access and while there were concerns as to the width of the footway to Upper Aughton Road, with points being less than 2.0m in size this has been addressed through the submission of an amended site plan. As seen from the comments above, the Council's Highways Manager are satisfied with the amendments and subject to conditions have no objection to the proposal

Other Issues

Asset of Community Value

Objectors to this proposal state that this building is of great value to the community and that their preference is that it should be retained and reused for community facilities. Reference has been made to the building being an asset of community value, but that is not accurate.

The Blundell Arms was added to the list of assets of community value on 14th April 2017 but this list only ensures that the community has a right to bid for the property when the owner decides to dispose of the asset. As seen on the publicly available list of community assets this building was removed from the list on 25th September 2018 following its disposal. The removal would have occurred as a sufficient bid was not received from any party other than the applicant within the relevant moratorium period, which is verified by an objector to the proposal commenting on the landowner not accepting a bid for part of the site (the "main pub building fronting Upper Aughton Road").

As this building is not a designated asset of community value then the requirements of Local Plan policy HC6 are not triggered.

The desires and/or intentions of objectors to use this building for community uses are noted but weight cannot be given to proposed alternative uses from third parties when determining a proposal.

Specific reference has been made by objectors to paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework that, for the avoidance of doubt, states:

"To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community; c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs; d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services."

Part (c) above may be of most relevance with objectors citing the public house - long since closed - as being a valued facility and service but it is unclear how the loss of this non- operational public house will affect the community's ability to meet day to day needs, given the presence of a public house nearby. It is noted that objectors are citing alternative uses for the public house but the Council must consider the scheme as presented. As this building is not listed as an asset of community value and currently serves no purpose, with little to no likelihood of the public house reopening, it is considered that para 92 is not applicable. Similarly, reference has been made to para 91 but this is with relation to an alternative use being proposed to which no consideration can be had during the determination of this application. This paragraph is therefore not applicable.

Ecology

A survey in relation to Bats and Breeding Birds was submitted alongside the application that was valid on 3rd January 2019, which stated that as the building had moderate bat roost suitability, in order to establish whether and/how bats are using the building dusk/dawn observation surveys are required. Such surveys should be undertaken between May - August, which resulted in a delay to the determination of this application and the Council was surprised that the application was submitted with the knowledge that such surveying was required, but not capable of being undertaken until much later.

The application was held in abeyance until such time as the further surveying was undertaken.

An inspection & assessment for bats & breeding birds with dusk survey results report was submitted to the Council on 6th June 2019 with the relevant dusk presence/absence surveys having been carried out on 7th and 21st May 2019 prior to the fire at the site. This report states that while bats were observed commuting or foraging through/within the site that emergence of bats from this building was absent. The Council's ecologists have stated that as no evidence of bat roosting was found the Council does not need to consider the proposals against the three tests of the Habitats Regulations. However, the ecologists recommend that as the existing building does have numerous potential bat roost features that will be lost when it is demolished, mitigation should be provided in the form of bat boxes to be installed within the site, noting that paragraph 10.3 of the dusk survey report provides advice on suitable bat boxes.

Planning Balance

At the heart of both the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These roles are interdependent and must be jointly sought to achieve sustainable development.

As seen above, the proposal is considered to be appropriate within the area and would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties or cause harm to highway safety. No weight can be given to these elements as they are policy requirements and must be met as a minimum for any development.

The proposal will provide for 8 new residential properties in an accessible location, which will help contribute to Sefton's housing supply. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing supply then this must be given weight. The number of dwellings is relatively modest and will make a minor contribution to the housing supply but a contribution will still be made from a brownfield site. This will meet the social objective set out in para 8 of the NPPF. Therefore, it is considered that this element of the proposal has moderate weight.

Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. The appeal proposal through the construction of the dwellings and expenditure associated with additional households in the area may provide modest economic benefits to which limited weight is attached as it will accord with the economic objective set out in para 8 of the NPPF.

The weight to be given to the loss of a non-designated heritage asset in its entirety is difficult to determine. According to paragraph 197 of the NPPF "a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significant of the heritage asset" and this approach is also reflected in the explanatory text to Local Plan policy NH15 'Non-designated Heritage Assets'.

The demolition of the building in its entirety cannot be said to have limited weight, given the asset and its accompanying significance will be lost. However, as it is not an asset of community value or a designated heritage asset, it is not considered that this matter can be afforded significant weight. Cross references to the balancing act or levels of harm applicable to designated heritage assets are not of merit here as the NPPF clearly differentiates in chapter 16 between designated and non-designated assets.

Respondents to this application highlight their links/attachments to the building in that the Blundell Arms was the host/original location for a popular folk club, that it hosted a number of clubs/training events that residents remember fondly and are also grateful for and that it acted as a landmark or notable building in the area with the Blundell Arms considered to be a great example of a "local vernacular style".

The number of people making the above comments is limited against the number of those citing an alternative use for the building as a point of objection, but it is clear that this building in itself has value to the public.

In view of the above it is therefore considered that the loss of the building is afforded moderate weight as it could be said that this proposal does not accord with the environmental objective in para 8 of the NPPF (as it does not protect or enhance the historic environment).

It is evident that the proposal has positive benefits in relation to two of the three overarching objectives for sustainable development set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF, social and economic, but fails to meet the environmental objective.

However, it is considered on balance that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm through the loss of the building. The proposal is therefore considered to be sustainable development and is compliant with the aims and objectives of the Local Plan and all other material considerations including the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal is therefore recommended for approval with the conditions as set out below.

Recommendation - Approve with Conditions

Approve with Conditions

This application has been recommended for approval subject to the following conditions and associated reasons:

Time Limit

1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Details and Plans

2) The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following details and plans:

Drawings

L04 Rev C 'Proposed Site Plan' (To be replaced with amended drawing in late representations) L05 Rev B 'Landscape Plan' (To be replaced with amended drawing in late representations) G01 'Type A Ground Floor Plan' G02 'Type A First Floor Plan' G04 'Type A Elevation' G05 'Type B Ground Floor Plan' G06 'Type B First Floor Plan' G08 'Type B Elevations' G09 'Type C Ground Floor Plan' G10 'Type C First Floor Plan' G12 'Type C Elevations' G14 'CGI's' (To be replaced with amended drawing in late representations)

* Note: The drawings with the G prefix above are not distinguished from other superseded drawings by way of revision references so for the avoidance of doubt they are the drawings dated 7th June 2019 on the Council's public access system.

G03 'Type A Roof Plan' G13 'Proposed Garage Plans and Elevations'

Reports Survey in Relation to Bats & Breeding Birds, Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd, dated 15th November 2018. Inspection & Assessment for Bats & Breeding Birds with Dusk Survey Results, Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd, dated 4th June 2019.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development.

Prior to Commencement

3) Before any construction commences:-

a) Details of the roofing and facing materials to be used in the external construction of this development along with details of the materials to be used in the boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

b) The materials approved under (a) above shall then be used in the construction of the development.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of visual amenity.

4) Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution.

5) No development shall commence until full details of a scheme for a surface water sustainable drainage system. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Thereafter the surface water sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage facilities are provided to serve the site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EQ8 in the Local Plan.

6) a) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme of highway improvement works together with a programme for the completion of the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the:

- Full reconstruction of a 2.0m footway across the frontage of the site (Upper Aughton Road, Clarence Road and Everton Road) - Removal of bollards and walls across the frontage of the site including repositioning of street light columns and phone box - Accessibility improvements to the junctions of Upper Aughton Road/Clarence Road and Upper Aughton Road/Everton Road

b) No part of the development shall be brought into use until the required highway improvement works have been constructed in accordance with the details approved under (a) above.