1

Liverpool Local Plan Examination Inspector’s questions and comments This is set out in the order of the plan policies. Please see my

covering note to the Council.

Where Main Modifications (policy re-wording and deletions) are

definitely required to make the plan sound, these are marked against the policy as MM.

Other Main Modifications may be required in due course, depending

on the responses to these questions and to the matters and issues and hearing discussions.

Delivering the Vision and Strategic Priorities

Policy STP1 Spatial Priorities for Sustainable Growth

1. Are all the sites that will be required to meet housing needs on previously developed land?

MM Policy STP2 Sustainable Growth Principles

2. Despite apparently applying to all development, this policy contains a series of aspirations which cannot be met in every case.

It covers a wide range of topics and applies general policy approaches which do not accurately reflect the more detailed policy

contents of the individual policies or of the NPPF.

3. The 2012 NPPF encourages the re-use of previously developed land but does not make it a “first priority”. The use of recycled

building material may be feasible in some cases but not all, so cannot be regarded as a “first priority”.

4. The policies on social inclusion and health and wellbeing are too

high level to explain to a decision maker or applicant how they will

be applied in individual planning applications.

5. The concept of “no adverse impact” is not appropriate: many developments have a level of impact and there is a planning

balance to be struck.

6. The criterion concerning the protection of the green infrastructure network is too general. That relating to heritage

assets is too general and does not properly reflect the detailed

2

requirements of the NPPF. The same can be said of most of the rest of the policy requirements.

7. Policy STP2 is therefore ineffective and should be deleted in its

entirety. It is in any case unnecessary, since there are individual policies which cover all these items in more detail. If the Council

wants to make a general statement about its broad approach to sustainable development it could consider putting it into the

background text.

Policy STP3 Protecting Environmentally Sensitive Areas

8. The issues of HRA and appropriate assessment have been addressed in my note to the Council of 26 November 2018.

MM Policy STP5 Infrastructure Provision

9. Criterion 1 of the policy appears to introduce a sequential approach towards the selection of land for development. This is not

reflected in the NPPF and is not effective because development schemes to meet the community’s needs will come forward at

different times and in different locations and cannot be sequenced or phased. The language of the policy needs to reflect the NPPF,

which says that planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using previously-developed land

(110) and support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of

transport.

10. In criterion 2 of the policy, the words “as identified by service

providers or in the Council’s IDP” should be deleted since this is too restrictive. Scheme promoters may themselves produce appropriate

evidence to identify the necessary mitigation and compensation measures.

11. In criterion 3 of the policy, it will not always be appropriate to

address “capacity issues” before development begins. The timing of any necessary infrastructure will depend on the point when it is

actually needed, as well as practicalities and viability. In order to be effective, the policy should reflect these realities.

Liverpool City Centre

Policy CC1 The Main Office Area

12. What analysis has been carried out to consider the best mix of uses for the major buildings to the west of the A5036 (notably the

3

Three Graces)? Currently the plan locates them within the Main Office Area and applies restrictive policy CC1 to them. Should their

scale, their complexity and their location within the World Heritage Site require a different strategy with a mixture of uses to improve

flexibility of use, to ensure high standards of long term maintenance and the enhancement of the surrounding area?

MM Policy CC2 Pumpfields

13. If the purpose of the policy is to support a mix of uses to create

a vibrant mixed use extension to the City Centre, why does criterion 1(b) refer only to employment premises for land west of Vauxhall

Road? (See also question regarding Policy EC1.)

14. Criterion 2(d) cannot require parking to be in accordance with

the City Council’s standards since these have not been subject to examination. The same applies to all subsequent relevant policies.

The wording should be “having regard to” rather than “in accordance with”. This point is picked up later in connection with

Policy TP8.

Policy CC3 The Knowledge Quarter

15. Is the Council satisfied that it has included a wide enough area within this defined quarter to assist and facilitate the future

development and expansion of the universities?

16. Does the plan reflect Liverpool University’s Estates Strategy and Masterplan, and to Liverpool John Moores University’s growth plans?

MM Policy CC7 Protecting and Enhancing the Main Retail Area

17. Criterion (c) states that compliance with the sequential approach will need to be demonstrated for retail proposals in the

city outside the Main Retail Area. The way the policy is written, it would appear to include any retail development in District, Local or

Neighbourhood Centres. If that is intended, it would be in conflict with Policy SP2 which allows for town centre uses in those locations

with no reference to a sequential test.

18. The actual intention of this policy as set out in Paragraph 6.76 is to protect the city centre against out of centre retail schemes, so

Policy CC7 itself needs to be re-worded to reflect this, for clarity and effectiveness.

19. There is also no mention of a floorspace threshold for vitality and viability testing.

4

Policy CC8 Non-A1 uses within the City Centre MRA

20. What recent analysis has been carried out to ascertain whether the prescriptive criteria restricting non-A1 uses are appropriate and

relevant, having regard to current changing retail patterns and the role of elements such as cafes and restaurants in contributing to

vitality and viability? Such analysis does not appear to feature in the Retail and Leisure Study 2016. The study points to very

significant growth in the café and restaurant sector, and affirms its importance to the maintenance of vitality.

21. What flexibility is built in to enable the city centre MRA to adapt

to current and future changing retail patterns? Has any work been

done on this?

MM Policy CC9 Cavern Quarter

22. In Criterion 2, regarding bars and nightclubs, the key considerations should be expressed as a set of criteria. As it is, the

policy does not provide enough clarity or rigour for a decision-maker to judge such proposals.

Policy CC20 Convenience Retail Provision in the City Centre

23. Policy CC7 supports non-food retail in the Main Retail Area and

Policy CC20 supports small scale convenience shops and services in the city centre. What does the plan say about larger convenience

stores and where they might be appropriate?

Policy CC24 Housing Provision in the City Centre

24. Has any work been carried out to look at the impact of requiring

Nationally Described Space Standards on (a) viability and (b) the affordability of dwellings at the lower end of the market?

MM Policy CC25 City Centre Student Accommodation

25. Is there is any justification for restricting student

accommodation just to the Knowledge Quarter, or to “close proximity to the University Campus locations”? There are many

cities where students walk, cycle or take the bus to the campus, supporting sustainable transport modes.

26. In addition, it is not appropriate for all student accommodation schemes to demonstrate that they support regeneration initiatives.

5

Such accommodation is intended to meet an identifiable need in society and so should not attract additional requirements. This

requirement should be deleted.

Employment Land and the Economy

Policy EC1 Employment Land Supply

27. The analysis of the employment land requirement which is set out in the Employment Land Evidence Base (December 2017)

contains an indicative overall total for large scale strategic distribution B8 for the Liverpool City Region of 246 ha to 317 ha.

The study then goes on to make a notional apportionment of large scale B8 uses to Liverpool of 35.2 ha to 45.4 ha, based on the

assumption of an equal split between the LCR authorities.

28. This indicative figure and notional apportionment have been

added to the range for other employment uses in Liverpool and are thus embedded in the mid-point forecast of 122 ha of employment

land. The overall employment requirement therefore appears to contain an element that is not directly evidence-based.

29. Has there been any work to establish a more accurate figure for

the overall figure for large scale distribution and for the apportionment to Liverpool, based on discussions between the LCR

authorities?

30. The indicative quantum of 246 ha to 317 ha referred to above is, according to the Employment Land Evidence Base, intended to

meet the sub-regional need for large-scale B8 need in Liverpool.

Does this include estimated growth arising from the SuperPort?

31. Given this background, what is the purpose of adding another 27 ha of employment land to Liverpool’s total estimated need to

support the sub-regional demand arising from the SuperPort? Where has the figure of 27 ha come from?

32. At what stage is the SuperPort proposal? Is this what is set out

in paragraph 7.29 of the plan? What is the timing of the planned infrastructure investments?

33. What is the employment growth trajectory over the plan period

arising from SuperPort? What is the trajectory of employment growth arising from it?

34. Large scale B8 distribution has particular needs regarding site size, location and access. However, the plan appears to combine B8

6

with other forms of employment to give a total which is used to justify the amount of general industrial/business allocations

represented by the PIAs. This approach risks over-allocating land for PIAs given that only a few of these will be suitable for large

scale strategic distribution. It is difficult to discern from Table 7 and from the remainder of this chapter where the strategic distribution

is intended to be located. What is the intention in respect of the location of large scale B8 distribution?

35. Paragraph 7.8 of the plan refers to Liverpool Waters. It says

that “it is recognised that this will deliver 314,500 sq m of B1 office space”. This is a substantial figure, but according to the plan it has

not been included in the employment land supply figure. What is the timing of this project; how much of it is within Liverpool; why

isn’t it in the supply figure and what impact would its inclusion in

the supply figure have on the plan’s employment land requirement?

Policy EC2 Employment Areas

36. The Liverpool Employment Land Study recognises that the Great Howard Street A565 Corridor South has seen a number of

developments in recent years which have shifted the character of the area to a mixed use area. The study recommends that mixed

use development should be supported in this area and loss of existing Class B employment space within the area should not be

resisted. In these circumstances please can the Council explain the evidence that has led to the designation of part of that area as a

Primarily Industrial Area in which land is primarily protected for industrial/business uses.

37. The same study states that Great Howard Street A565 Corridor East comprises a mix of uses including some smaller scale

employment uses and residential areas. It contains 2.12 ha of potentially available and suitable land for employment uses which

equates to 3% of Liverpool’s identified supply. Given this and the existing nature of the sub-area, the study concluded that the

existing Class B employment space within the Great Howard Street A565 Corridor East should not be specifically protected for such use

and the Council should consider a flexible approach to consideration of development proposals in the area. Against this background,

please can the Council explain the evidence that has led to the designation of this area as a Primarily Industrial Area in which land

is primarily protected for industrial/business uses.

38. In both these instances, and for the other PIAs, please can the

Council set out what evidence it has gathered of local economic conditions and market realities, including viability for B class uses,

7

that would support the plan’s continued allocation of these areas for primarily industrial uses.

Policy EC3 Delivering Economic Growth

39. In respect of the support given to port and maritime industry,

have logistics purposely been omitted? What role are they seen to have in Liverpool (having regard to the previous questions).

MM Policy EC4 Culture, Tourism and Sport

40. This policy tries to cover a number of things but is not clear or

effective for a number of reasons.

41. Firstly, the extent of the policy is unclear. The heading refers to

culture, tourism and sport, the bullets refer to tourist and cultural facilities and major events. The sport references are only to the two

major football clubs. The relationship to Policy GI3 which deals with open space, sport and recreation provision is unclear.

42. Criterion 1 is ambiguous but its most obvious meaning is that it

supports only existing facilities or major facilities. That being the case, new small scale cultural and sports initiatives of value to local

people (small theatres, cinemas, museums, sports facilities of all kinds) are not supported by the policy, nor anywhere else in the

plan, since the bullets only support either proposals that enhance existing facilities, or new facilities that contribute to the city’s

success as a visitor destination or as a venue for major events. Is that the intention?

43. As regards criterion 2, it is too onerous to require all proposals to be capable of multi-use. Large cultural facilities often have to be

purpose built, whilst small cultural and sports facilities do not necessarily have the funds to achieve this objective.

44. Regarding criterion 3, new hotels are purpose-built and it is

unreasonable to expect planning applications to demonstrate that they will be capable of conversion to other residential uses in the

future.

45. This policy will require re-writing to set out its intentions more clearly, and to remove the onerous requirements referred to above.

It may be better to create more than one policy to deal with the various different activities.

8

Policy EC5 Office Development Policy EC6 Mixed Use Areas

46. See comments on Policy CC1.

MM Policy EC7 Liverpool John Lennon Airport

47. A separate note has been written to the Council in respect of the habitats regulation assessment and the need for plan-level

appropriate assessment.

48. The policy cannot say that proposals will be judged on the basis

of whether they accord with the LJLA masterplan or the Airport Surface Access Strategy, since these have not been examined in the

same manner as the policies of this plan. Any reference to the masterplan and strategy should be in the supporting text and they

cannot be determinative of any planning application.

49. The LJLA Masterplan was issued for public consultation in June 2017. What was the outcome of that consultation and have any

changes to the Masterplan arisen as a result?

50. What work has been carried out by the Council to assess the

effect of this policy on Speke Hall and any other heritage assets?

51. Is there a Green Belt Review which assesses the qualities of the

land at the Oglet which is proposed to be released from the Green Belt, and its contribution to the Green Belt?

52. The LJLA Masterplan states that the Oglet is the only suitable location to meet the need for growth of aviation uses and

associated commercial and employment, and that the land could accommodate a variety of size and type of employment

requirements including large footprint buildings such as MRO hangars, air freight transit sheds, and logistics facilities. From this it

would appear that the land is not directly required for the runway

extension but is sought for airport related uses and logistics. Can the Council provide evidence of the evaluation of reasonable

alternatives for these activities?

Policy EC8 Ports of Liverpool and Garston

53. A separate note has been written to the Council in respect of the habitats regulation assessment and the need for plan-level

appropriate assessment.

9

Housing provision

MM Policy H1 Housing Requirement

54. The housing requirement should be expressed in terms of a minimum number of dwellings.

55. The requirement is stated as being 1,739 dwellings per annum for the period 2013-33. However, the SHELMA’s economic growth

scenario figure is 1,791 dpa. Paragraph 3.10 of the housing topic paper does not explain the reasons for the Council’s selection of

1,739 dwellings compared with 1,791. Does the employment land provision under Policy EC1 (including the additional 27 ha of

employment land) represent the economic growth scenario and if so should that be reflected in the housing requirement?

56. Is the under delivery discount notional or is it based on past evidence of the proportion of permitted sites not coming forward for

development?

57. In respect of housing supply, what evidence underpins the estimate of windfall development in row H of Table 7 in the

submitted plan, which looks like 50% of 260?

58. Given that housing in the first 5 years will be likely to be known

sites – ie commitments or allocations – and that sites currently unknown will not deliver for some time, row H of Table 7 and Table

5.2 of the draft SHLAA report of May 2018 in respect of 5 year supply would appear to be incorrect to include an allowance for

windfall development in the period 2018-23.

59. Student housing – the Housing Topic Paper states that the

SHMA 2016 used a ratio of 5:1 to measure the number of dwellings released to meet OAN as a consequence of student housing

development. I assume that this means that one dwelling would be released for every 5 student residences. However, unless there is

direct evidence of an actual reduction in the occupation of ordinary

market dwellings in the city by students as a result of the provision of student accommodation, then no accommodation can be said to

be released on to the market. In those circumstances new student accommodation cannot be counted towards any of the housing

requirement or the 5 year housing land supply. Please can the Council either provide the direct evidence referred to, or if that

evidence is not available, re-calculate the housing supply to take out any contribution from student housing.

10

Policy H2 Residential Development Site Allocations

Policy H3 Proposals for Residential Development

60. It is noted that the SHMA indicates that the majority of need for market housing is for two and three bedroom homes, that there is a

shift towards a requirement for dwellings for family households and that the Council wishes to encourage larger (4 plus bedroom)

homes to meet the needs of larger households and households with managerial and professional occupations. In that regard, how are

these objectives expected to be achieved on the allocated sites, having regard to the likely mix of dwellings on them?

MM Policy H4 Older Persons’ Housing

61. In respect of retirement housing, what evidence is there to

indicate that criteria 3(b) and 3(f) are necessary? Many successful retirement homes are conveniently located for their residents on

city sites in which amenity space is relatively limited and where

dwellings are isolated from noise and traffic by good design and construction methods.

62. What is the planning reason for criterion (f) which seeks a legal agreement limiting the age of occupiers?

63. Retirement villages are to be supported because of the identified need for homes for a growing population of older people,

so it is not appropriate to place the additional onus on applicants to demonstrate that retirement villages will contribute positively to the

maintenance of mixed and balanced communities. Criterion 4(b) should therefore be deleted.

MM Policy H5 Student Housing Provision

64. Similar points arise here as with Policy CC25. The requirement

for close proximity to university campus areas has not been justified. And given that student housing provision is meeting the

accommodation needs of a sector of society the additional onus in

criterion 1(b) to contribute to wider regeneration initiatives is not appropriate and should be deleted.

65. Criterion 2(b) to require accommodation to be in a cluster configuration has not been justified and impedes the ability to

provide a range of types of layout depending on demand and site configuration. This criterion should be deleted.

66. Criterion 2(d) regarding “future proofing” places an unnecessary impediment in the way of the provision of student accommodation

11

which by its nature is built to serve a particular purpose. This requirement should be deleted.

67. In Criterion 2(e), the policy cannot require development to comply with the City Council’s guidance on Recycling and Waste

Management, because that guidance has not been examined and is not part of a development plan (it’s a similar point to the one on car

parking standards). The Council could instead say in the supporting text that proposals will be expected to have regard to the guidance.

Policy H6 Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites

68. The GTAA is getting fairly old (2014). When is it likely to be

reviewed?

69. What provisions will be in place to monitor the balance of supply

(through turnover) and demand for pitches in Liverpool?

MM Policy H8 House Extensions

70. This policy is ineffective and unduly onerous because it tries to

impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a city with a wide variety of residential building typologies and circumstances. It would mean

that designs which would be appropriate for individual cases but did not fit the prescriptive criteria in the policy would be contrary to the

development plan. If the Council want more prescriptive criteria it will be necessary to do this through SPD which can be tailored to

the more particular circumstances of local areas.

71. The following are specific criticisms, but the main point is that

all the prescriptive material will need to be removed.

72. Part 1 of the policy contains criteria which will not apply in

every circumstance. There will be instances where it is better to extend a dwelling on the same scale or in the same plane as the

front elevation; or use a different material; or have smaller windows.

73. As regards Part 2, side extensions, the same points arise; there

are many sites that will require a different design solution. In respect of some single storey extensions there will be circumstances

where a flat roof will be adequate.

74. The dimensions in Parts 5 and 6 will not fit every situation.

75. Part 7 should say that dormer extensions will usually be confined to the front otherwise the rest of the sentence does not

make sense.

12

76. In parts 9 and 10, the limitation of rear extensions to 3m from the main dwelling is unduly prescriptive. It would be better to rely

on a criterion which referred to daylight, sunlight and outlook.

77. Part 11 is again unduly prescriptive when it comes to roof form.

There will be circumstances where a different design solution is required.

78. Part 12 is inappropriate. If an extension is acceptable, having regard to its impact on character, appearance and living conditions,

it should be permitted. If it is unacceptable it should be refused. Personal circumstances should not normally lead to a different

outcome, because the extension will continue to exist long after the personal circumstances have changed.

79. Parts 14 and 15 are too prescriptive.

80. I invite the Council to re-write this policy to focus on the real

planning issues which are relevant to residential areas throughout

the city – those relating to character and appearance, outlook, sunlight and daylight.

MM Policy H9 Vacant Housing, Refurbishment/Extensions, and Housing Renewal

81. As it stands this policy is too general to be effective. Part 2 of the policy relating to housing renewal appears to give carte blanche

to all large scale refurbishment/redevelopment proposals. Aren’t there objectives that such schemes should comply with, or

circumstances where such schemes are and aren’t acceptable? What about the retention of buildings of good townscape value, or those

providing good accommodation? What about the principles of community engagement?

MM Policy H10 Conversion of Dwellings and Buildings

82. This policy allows the conversion of any house into flats, studios

and HMOs, subject to criteria. This would appear to conflict with

other aspects of the plan. Has the Council carried out any evaluation of the impact of this policy on:

(a) the Council’s stated objective of increasing the supply of 2, 3 and 4+ bedroom dwellings to meet the needs of families? This

policy would appear to be contrary to that objective; and

(b) the quality of established residential areas; and

(c) the relationship of this permissive policy to the much more strict policies on student accommodation.

13

83. There are a number of individual criticisms of this policy. The point about compliance with the Council’s guidance on recycling and

waste management is the same as that raised in Policy H5. However, rather than delve into this level of detail, I invite the

Council to look again at the objectives behind this policy and consider re-casting it to ensure it fits with the other plan objectives

and policies.

MM Policy H11 HMOs: Neighbourhood Approach

84. This aims to designate neighbourhoods in which further conversion to HMOs would be resisted, but it has a number of

faults.

85. At the moment the policy is very unclear as to its effect. Is it

intended to apply to the 3 neighbourhoods in the policy, or the 9 neighbourhoods in paragraph 8.67? Which are the “designated”

areas? Since this policy would result in the refusal of planning

permission for HMOs in “designated” neighbourhoods, the policy itself should set out all the neighbourhoods which will be covered by

the policy, and the areas should be shown on the Proposals Map.

86. Leaving the designation decision to a future process is not

acceptable since the process of designation would sit outside the plan, and thus would not be examined, yet a development plan

policy would be applied to the designated areas.

87. Using the existence of an Article 4 Direction as a criterion in the

policy is the wrong way round. The areas should be designated by the Plan on the basis of the concentration of HMOs, and it is up to

the Council whether to make an Article 4 Direction which would give effect to the policy on smaller properties.

88. Finally, it is not possible to have a “presumption in favour of refusal”. Presumably the policy means to say that in designated

areas further changes of use to HMOs will be resisted.

MM Policy H12 Accessible Housing

89. There needs to be greater precision in this policy to make it

effective. The introduction to Part 1 of the policy can be read as saying that all new homes have to meet both M4(2) and M4(3) of

the Building Regulations. That is probably not what is intended. The subsequent text appears to suggest that all dwellings should meet

M4(2) and that 10% should meet M4(3).

90. In view of the evidence of the prevalence of long term health

problems or disability in the city, it appears acceptable for all dwellings to meet M2(2), which appears to be what part (a) of the

14

policy is saying, although it should be made clearer. The standard isn’t mentioned here; it should be referred to so that everyone

knows what is being sought.

91. Part (b) of the policy needs to be changed so that its effect is

clear. Part M of the Building Regulations sets a distinction between wheelchair accessible (a home readily useable by a wheelchair user

at the point of completion) and wheelchair adaptable (a home that can be easily adapted to meet the needs of a household including

wheelchair users) dwellings. The PPG states that policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those

dwellings where the local authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling. A policy seeking a

proportion of homes to be wheelchair adaptable can be applied to general housing. The policy needs to clarify this, and again the

standard should be referred to so that everyone can see what is

being sought. In addition, please can the Council explain why it has come to the conclusion that the figure should be set at 10%.

92. In part 2 of the policy, the Nationally Described Space Standard may be used where it is justified, so what is the particular

justification for the use of this standard, specific to Liverpool?

MM Policy H13 New Housing – Physical and Design Requirements

outside the City Centre

93. The City Council does not have a policy vehicle for determining

appropriate density throughout the city. The plan does not say anything about, for example, a future SPD on the subject. Moreover

the policy does not say anything about making the best use of the site. Rather, the policy should state that schemes will be expected

to optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development whilst having regard to … (the three sub points (a) to (c)).

94. In 2(a)(v), the reference to backland development could be

taken to mean back gardens, which is not supported by government policy.

95. Part 3 of the policy is far too prescriptive, does not have regard to current development typology in Liverpool and does not apply in

every circumstance; it should be deleted.

96. Part 5 of the policy is a repetition from Policy H12 and the

requirement needs to be justified.

97. Parts 7 to 15 of the policy are too prescriptive and do not have

a place in a development plan designed to govern development in a city with Liverpool’s varied character. The city has a wide range of

building typologies which mean that there will be a variety of

15

contexts demanding different design solutions which may not conform to these criteria. It would be more appropriate to have a

general policy which seeks to protect the local character, privacy, daylight and sunlight and provide adequate amenity space. This

would enable design solutions to be found which the Council could judge against these objectives. It might be possible to establish

more detailed design criteria for specific areas through SPD, but these parts of Policy H13 should be deleted.

98. Part 16 (b) should be deleted. The development plan cannot require a developer to offer a highway for adoption. Department for

Transport Advice Note “Highway Adoptions” recognises, at paragraph 3, that not all roads are suitable for, nor do all residents

or developers wish or require, their roads to receive adoption into the highway to be maintained at public expense.

Shopping Centres and Community Facilities

Policy SP1 The Hierarchy of Centres for Liverpool

99. The Liverpool Retail and Leisure study (paragraph 9.121) states

that many of the district and local centres are performing very poorly. A high or growing vacancy rate within District and Local

Centres should be seen as a structural rather than short-term problem and an indicator of an oversupply of tertiary and obsolete

retail property. There is no clear indication in the plan of how this significant issue is to be addressed. Have the Council given

consideration to the management of the legacy of obsolete retail property and shrinkage of retail centres referred to in the study?

100. What is the Council’s view on the role of the retail parks, such as the New Mersey Shopping Park and the Liverpool Shopping Park,

Edge Lane? As these are large, established shopping and leisure destinations, should Policy SP1 recognise their role in the hierarchy

of centres?

101. Does the list adequately capture all recognised shopping centres including those important to local people or particular

groups of people?

Policy SP2 Town Centre Uses

102. In the context of changing retail patterns, is the designation of all the “development opportunity sites” for town centre uses

justified? What work has been carried out to assess their impact on the viability and viability of existing centres?

103. Should the plan set out the considerations for development of these sites in the same manner as for the housing sites, given that

16

there will be access, character and appearance and heritage assets to take into account?

104. Has appropriate consideration been given to the extent of the boundaries of the centres, such as at Great Homer Street and

Garston, having regard to projected future retail growth or the need to plan for shrinkage?

MM Policy SP4 Food and Drink Uses and Hot Food Takeaways

105. As regards SP4(2), childhood obesity is a product of a number

of factors including parental choice and example and the propensity to undertake physical activity. Not all takeaway food is “unhealthy”

and not all kinds of takeaway food are bought by children. The policy would have no bearing on the many retail units that sell high

calorie, high sugar food, or on the many existing takeaways, and of course could have no influence on takeaway deliveries. In this

context there is no evidence that this policy would be effective in

altering dietary choices to safeguard or improve childhood health. Neither the 2012 NPPF nor the 2018 NPPF support the restriction of

dietary choice through the planning system; the 2018 NPPF simply refers to access to healthier food. This part of the policy should be

deleted.

106. As with Policy CC8(b)(ii), what purpose is intended to be

served by the restriction that there should not be less than 2 non-A5 units between hot food takeaways?

MM Policy SP6 Out of Centre and Edge of Centre Retail and Leisure Uses

107. The 350 sq m threshold for the provision of a retail impact assessment is very much lower than the NPPF’s default threshold of

2,500 sq m. The Retail and Leisure study simply takes a figure arising from an analysis of unit sizes in different centres. A figure

based on individual unit sizes does not itself relate to a likely impact

on a town centre. The point about impact assessment is to consider the effect on the relevant sector in order to assess the effect on the

centre. Please will the Council provide evidence to support an appropriate threshold for impact analysis.

108. Part 2 of the policy is unsound as it stands. If a proposal meets the criteria in Part 1 of the policy it should be acceptable without

further control. If the evidence demonstrates that it would have a significant impact, then it may be necessary to attach planning

conditions to a permission to control these factors. Whether the controls are required as a result of retail impact will depend on the

evidence in each case. The policy should be re-written to take this into account.

17

109. It should also be noted, in respect of Part 2, that the Council cannot reasonably control the number of “operators” per unit by

condition. This would represent an unreasonable intrusion by the Council into the day-to-day management of the retail unit and this

element should therefore be deleted.

Urban Design

MM Policy UD6 Tall Buildings

110. In the interests of effectiveness, Part 1(d) should state “where

appropriate” as design review may not always lead to amendments.

111. Similarly, under 7(h), shouldn’t overlooking, privacy and

outlook be included?

MM Policy UD8 Public Art

112. Neither the NPPF nor the very extensive guidance in the PPG refer to public art as an integral part of good design. Good design

can be achieved in many other ways; public art is not required to

make a development acceptable. A policy requiring public art to be incorporated into all development over a certain size, or requiring

contributions to off-site provision, is therefore unsound. Policy UD8 should therefore be deleted.

113. The Council might consider some supplementary planning guidance which supports public art in suitable locations, but it can

only be supportive, not prescriptive.

Heritage

MM Policy HD1 Heritage Assets

114. Parts 3 of this policy does not reflect the NPPF approach

towards designated heritage assets in terms of the different approaches that apply where there is substantial and less than

substantial harm. Setting also needs to be mentioned. Please can the Council re-write these sections to reflect the NPPF.

115. Part 4 should have the added words “and the significance of

the heritage asset” to accord with the NPPF.

116. In Part 6, are there up to date conservation area appraisals

that cover every conservation area? If not, this eventuality should be covered by “those aspects of the area that contribute to its

character or appearance”, reflecting the words in the relevant Act.

117. Should this policy include a section on enabling development?

18

MM Policy HD2 Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site

118. Part 1(a) should end at the word “vistas”. The SPD has not been examined and so cannot be given the weight of a development

plan. The supporting text could say that regard will be had to the SPD.

Green Infrastructure

MM Policy GI1 Green Infrastructure Resources

119. This policy refers generally to protection but it does not reflect precisely or accurately the specific circumstances in which

protection will be given. In the case of open spaces and biodiversity, these requirements are mostly set out in subsequent

policies. In the case of Green Corridors and the Green Web (referred to in 12.6) these need to be justified by evidence and the

approach to them needs to be set out in specific policies. It is not

precise enough simply to say that these “will be protected and enhanced”. What criteria will be relevant to them? For all these

reasons, Policy GI1 is therefore ineffective and unsound and should be deleted.

120. The plan area contains Green Belt but does not have a Green Belt policy. This would appear to be a significant omission.

Policy GI2 Green Wedges

121. How old is the evidence base? What is the effect of recent

planning permissions on the extent of the area of Green Wedge? Does the proposals map need updating?

122. What is the relationship between the Green Wedges and the Green Web?

MM Policy GI3 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Provision

123. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF sets out its own criteria for

assessing whether or not an open space can be built on. It is not

appropriate to add three additional tests which must be met “without material harm”. These have the effect of overriding the

criteria within the NPPF.

124. The appearance aspects of greenspace and the specific issues

relating to allotments are better dealt separately from the Paragraph 74 and there needs to be an acknowledgement that

planning balance is involved in assessing the merits of any scheme.

19

125. Please will the Council re-write the policy with these points in mind.

126. A further point is that this is an entirely negative policy and neither this policy nor Policy GI9 provide an positive basis for

seeking playspace, pitches or informal open space that are required to meet the needs of new development. See comments on Policy

GI9.

MM Policy GI5 Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity

127. A separate question has been raised with the Council regarding the Habitats Regulation Assessment and Appropriate Assessment.

128. Under part 2, first and third bullets, the reference to the “reasons for” and the “need for” the development should be

deleted. These are not in the NPPF and the onus is not on the developer to demonstrate the need for development.

129. The first bullet of part 2 should refer to “the features of the

site that make it of special scientific interest” rather than “the nature conservation value of the site”, since SSSIs may have other

purposes.

130. The third bullet of part 2 does not reflect the NPPF. This states

that development harming priority habitats / irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a

suitable compensation strategy. This should be re-worded to conform with the NPPF.

131. Part 3 of the policy contains a sequential approach (or “hierarchy of sites” which is not reflected in the NPPF. Such an

approach would fail to take into account the individual circumstances of each case. Moreover the reference to the City and

LCR is irrelevant because the natural world does not respect local authority boundaries. The sequential approach should therefore be

deleted. Instead, the policy should say appropriate mitigation or

compensatory provision will be required (and stop there). Typical measures and options might be set out in the supporting text.

MM Policy GI7 New Planting and Design

132. This is an excessively prescriptive policy, most of which is not

suitable for a development plan but could form SPD or, in edited form, go into the supporting text (or possibly an appendix providing

guidance in respect of tree planting).

133. Under Part 1, trees will not always form part of an appropriate

landscaping scheme; it depends on the nature of the site. So the

20

policy cannot say “All new development..” This needs to be altered. It should say something like “Where appropriate, depending on the

character of the site and locality”

134. Part 1(a) (b) and (c) are acceptable.

135. In part (d) the importation of pests is an issue that is dealt with under other legislation and not by planning, so the remainder

of the point after the first sentence should be deleted.

136. In part (f) BS guidance can change so this subheading should

be in the explanatory text.

137. Part (g) is unsound because outline applications cannot

necessarily accommodate full landscaping schemes. Moreover trees will not necessarily be appropriate in all landscaping schemes. If an

appropriate scheme is designed for a site which does not necessitate tree planting, it is not appropriate to seek funding for

off-site planting. Criterion (g) should therefore be deleted. The list

of requirements could be appropriately included in the supporting text.

138. Part 2 is too prescriptive, since not all developments will lend themselves to this approach. “The Council’s requirements for new

trees” could be included in the supporting text (see above).

139. Parts 4, 5 and 6 are not appropriate for a development plan

policy, being too prescriptive, but could go into the supporting text as general guidance.

MM Policy GI8

140. Part 2 of the policy refers to BS guidance; this part should be

deleted from the policy and put into the explanatory text.

141. In 3(b), is the policy intended to say adequate spacing

between the development and the retained trees, rather than between the trees?

142. Item 3(c) and the table are too prescriptive and are also

unreasonable. Firstly, some trees that are removed may be poor or insignificant specimens that do not contribute to the character of

the area and need not be replaced. Secondly, since landscaping should be an integral consideration of any development scheme, the

number of new trees on a development site should reflect the structural landscaping required by the scheme design. This will not

be related to the number of trees removed or the size of their trunks. Thirdly, seeking substantial numbers of trees on the basis of

the removal of one tree with a large trunk pays no regard to the

21

space needed for the replacement trees to grow. 3(c) and the table should therefore be deleted. It might be replaced by a clause that

states that development proposals should aim to retain existing significant, healthy trees where these make a contribution to the

character of the site or the locality.

143. In 3(e), who decides whether a tree is a veteran? Are there

any veteran trees in Liverpool and, if so, where are they?

144. In 12.42, there cannot be a presumption in favour of retaining

all trees of whatever kind – in effect, that means a presumption against removing all trees, which is impractical and a likely

impediment to good design solutions for development sites. The policy needs to recognise that significant trees that contribute to the

character of the locality should be retained but that new landscaping and tree planting integrated with the design of the new

development may be a better long term solution than retaining all

existing trees. This paragraph needs to be altered to reflect the policy approach suggested above in relation to 3(c).

MM Policy GI9 Green Infrastructure Enhancement

145. This policy is unsound. The plan cannot require development

proposals to provide green infrastructure that responds to the “needs of the area” – since this is not fairly and reasonably related

to the development. Moreover, it cannot require contributions to off-site green infrastructure unless they are fairly and reasonably

related to the development.

146. This policy should be deleted and replaced with one that

relates to the needs of the development, such as playspace, pitches and informal open space – not “green infrastructure enhancement”

but provision of different kinds of open space to meet the needs of the development. If the necessary provision cannot be met on site,

the development should make provision for it to be met nearby

where it can serve the development, through contributions where appropriate. When re-writing this policy, does the Council have any

standards for playspace and open space provision that could be referred to in the supporting text?

147. Items 1(a) and 3 relating to biodiversity, and 1(b) relating to mitigation works to relieve pressure on international or national

sites, should be addressed in Policy GI5. Item 1(f) is already covered by Policy R3(4).

148. In Item 2, the basis and detail of the Green Web are not explained sufficiently in the plan to justify seeking contributions

towards it.

22

149. Funding of the wider green infrastructure projects referred to in the policy should be addressed through CIL, should the Council

wish to do so.

Environmental Resources

Policy R1 Environmental Impacts and Protection

150. The title of the policy does not reflect the items in 1(a).

Policy R2 Hazardous Substances

151. Is Item 1(c) necessary, given the requirements of 1(a) and

1(b)?

152. Please can the Council explain what is meant by Item 1(d)?

Policy R4 Coastal Protection

153. Should this policy contain reference to measures for the

adaptation to climate change?

MM Policy R5 Canals, Rivers, Watercourses and Culverts

154. Part 2 should be deleted. Abstraction licences are dealt with

through abstraction licences which are a matter for the Environment Agency.

155. Part 3 is too negatively worded; it would be better to say “should be avoided”.

156. Part 4 is unnecessary because it repeats Policy R3(2)(d).

MM Policy R6 Minerals

157. Under item 2(b), the requirement to demonstrate necessity and the availability of no other viable source is not a requirement of

the NPPF and should be deleted.

158. Under Item 3, is it necessary to have a separate heading for

hydraulic fracturing? Do these requirements also apply to other minerals schemes?

Policy R7 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

159. Proposals… it

23

MM Policy R8 Wind Turbines

160. A separate note has been sent to the Council relating among

other things to the relationship of wind turbines to European designated sites.

161. In Part 3, item 2, the word “therefore” should be removed. See NPPF 2018, footnote 49.

MM Policy R9 Solar Panels

162. The NPPF does not state that solar farms or energy generation

from other low carbon sources should be focused on previously developed land. Usually greenfield sites are required because they

provide land areas of a suitable size. It is not clear what “focused on” means in any case. Part 1 of the policy is therefore ineffective

and not positive enough towards renewable energy and should be deleted.

163. Part 2 of the policy is not encouraging enough towards this

source of renewable energy, creating a long list of hurdles and requiring that the impact on visual amenity is “minimised” and that

there should be “no unacceptable impacts” on the landscape. It is therefore not positively prepared. Solar energy projects inevitably

involve a change in appearance and this should be recognised.

164. In addition, the policy appears to cover both large scale solar

panel installations and small local installations, which means that the set of criteria is disproportionately onerous for smaller projects.

165. The policy should be re-written in a more positive form, with a proportionate approach towards the requirements of different sized

developments.

MM Policy R10 Non-Fossil Fuel Energy Sources

166. Proposals… it

167. What energy sources are covered by this policy?

168. Why does criterion (b) refer to heritage assets in this level of

detail when other policies do not? Given that the plan is read as a whole, it should not be necessary to make this reference since

heritage assets are dealt with under their own policy.

169. Item (d) should read “there is no significant harm to the

character and appearance of the area or to living conditions”.

24

Sustainable Transport and Accessibility

MM Policy TP2 Transport Assessments

170. It is not appropriate to require all development proposals have

to submit a transport statement or assessment. The NPPF states that all developments “that generate significant amounts of

movement” should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. These words need to be inserted in Part 1.

171. The difference between the statement and the assessment should be set out in the explanatory text. The explanatory text

should also set out a threshold development size for the submission of a transport assessment.

172. Item 3(b) needs to be changed to reflect the terms of the NPPF, which states that development should only be prevented on

transport grounds where the residual cumulative effects of

development are severe. It should read “the development would not, individually or cumulatively with other projects, have a severe

impact on the functioning of the network”.

MM Policy TP4 Strategic Road Schemes

173. New roads are also required to serve identified development needs. The policy needs to include this.

MM Policy TP5 Cycling

174. Item (e) includes an ineffective requirement; an audit cannot

“ensure that local roads are safe, attractive and comfortable”. Larger schemes would in any case have to produce a transport

assessment which would include cycling. Item (f) is not fairly and reasonably related to the development. Both Item (e) and Item (f)

are unsound and should be deleted.

MM Policy TP6 Walking

175. In respect of Item (a), it is not fairly and reasonably related to

a development to require it to have a “positive effect” on the pedestrian network and its users. Items (e) and (f) are unsound for

similar reasons to those in TP5 and should be deleted.

MM Policy TP7 Taxis

176. It is impractical to require all developments used by the public to incorporate taxi facilities. The policy should say that the Council

will seek where practicable.

25

MM Policy TP8

177. The policy cannot say that parking provision should be made in

accordance with the City Council’s standards. Those standards have not been subject to examination so they cannot have the force of a

development plan policy. Rather, the policy should say that parking should be provided having regard to the standards. This applies

throughout the plan.

178. Electric charging points: there are different standards and

types of socket. What is the Council actually seeking?

MM Policy TP9 Public Transport

179. Part 1: this is unnecessary in relation to all development. It is relevant to large scale development, so the policy might say that

transport assessments should consider public transport useage.

180. Part 2: this is only relevant in large developments capable of

supporting or providing an extension to bus services. This should be

made clear.

181. Part 4: “major” development includes 10 or more homes which

is generally too small to be capable of providing bus infrastructure. Rather, this should say that transport assessments should consider

how opportunities could be taken to provide good access to the bus network, including where appropriate the infrastructure necessary

to support such access.

182. Part 5: the same point applies as to Part 4. This is again

something that could be included in a transport assessment where one is appropriate.