Committee to make final call on Garston refusal
Having rejected Peloton Real Estate’s proposals for open storage at Blackburne Street in April, Liverpool City Council’s planning committee will be asked to set out its position ahead of any subsequent appeal.
Officers had recommended approval for the 11.4-acre site, at Garston Industrial Estate, ahead of Liverpool City Council’s 1 April meeting. Strong local opposition was shown, with 10 objectors and a councillor addressing the meeting. A decision was deferred pending a site visit.
That site visit was completed before the subsequent committee meeting on 22 April, but failed to move the dial significantly.
Peloton’s proposal was refused. Cllr Sam Gorst and nine objectors addressed the meeting, raising concerns relating to the increase in traffic and the pollution caused, air quality, contents of containers, the consultation process, anti-social behaviour and vandalism, health and wellbeing of residents and the potential effect on property prices.
In line with committee procedural arrangements, consideration of the application is now referred back to the planning committee to enable a further report setting out the suggested reason for refusal and potential implications of the proposed decision.
Effectively, grounds for refusal do not appear strong on purely planning reasons, and members are now asked if they are prepared to back their decision in the face of officer advice, setting out a council position for any appeal.
Should they commit to ratifying the “minded to refuse” verdict, officers advise that there is only one reason for refusal that looks reasonably defensible on planning grounds.
As set out in the report, that is: “By virtue of the type and frequency of the vehicular traffic generated alongside the associated operational noise and hours of operation, the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties through unacceptable noise and air quality impacts, contrary to Policy R1 of the Liverpool Local Plan.”
As pointed out by officers, “Members are reminded that the applicant would have the option of appealing against the decision which opens the possibility of costs being awarded against the Council, if the council is found to have behaved in an unreasonable manner.
“In addition, there would be an expectation that if any appeal were to be held as a hearing or public enquiry, a representative of Planning Committee would attend to present the views of Committee.”
It is reiterated that in the opinion of officers, consulting with LCC’s environmental health team, the reports on noise and air quality impacts remain unchanged, ie that there would be minimal impact.
The 11.4-acre Blackburne Street site was bought by a joint venture between Peloton Real Estate and investor Moorfield Group for £4m in 2022, the first investment in what was billed as a possible £100m programme in the open storage market.
Savills is advising the development team. The site is allocated for employment in the Local Plan, and is now cleared.
In a separate matter, members will consider an application from YMCA Together for a change of use at Pembroke Studios, Brownlow Hill.
This would see conversion of the upper floors at a block that currently blends ground floor commercial with three floors of student accommodation and two floors of serviced apartments become a supported living scheme.
Application numbers for the projects are 22F/2806 for Garston and 25F/0364 for Pembroke Studios.
This looks to be a former industrial area that had much traffic, just one councillor objecting and 10 complainants, this is a familiar pattern for the Liverpool Planning Committee, ie weak, going against their officers and backing a small number of vociferous residents.
By Anonymous
Strong comments ‘Liverpool Planning Committee, ie weak, going against their officers and backing a small number of vociferous residents.’!!
There were over 2000 objections in the area! Peloton could not say what was going to be stored in the containers, 1600 additional vehicles per visit, ASB out of control due to lack of Policing and you want a storage site in the middle of a residential estate operating 7am-11pm, 7 days per week surrounded by hard working people! The community deserves more, especially since LCC gave Veolia permission to burn 86,000 tonnes of chemical waste that impacts far and wide around South Liverpool.
It’s about time the people challenged Liverpool City Council.
By Concerned resident
The name of the person on the planning application, does not even work there anymore.
He has said ‘bon voyage’ and ‘got on his bike’, and left Peloton to face the ‘music’ that is being created by over 1800 individual objections.
This land has been ’empty’ for a number of years, but what have LCC officers promised, and for what ‘gain’ ? low quality jobs, storage of who knows what close to houses, along with the noise and pollution that will have an impact on residents mental and physical health !
By On Ya Bike
It seems to me, being very much familiar with the area and most certainly (from a long term professional perspective) familiar with the nature of the proposed (currently refused) plan(s) for the site, that, it is most certain that the nature and frequency of the ‘new’ traffic if the refusal was lifted – would impact greatly and adversely the predominantly terraced back to back nature of the area.
I would suggest that the plot, although purchased at low cost is located extremely poorly for such a proposition – time will tell and I strongly suspect (as is the nature of such dealings) palms will be crossed with silver and the plans will go ahead, to the shame of LCC.
Far, far better use of the plot occur immediately to me at least, but would require additional investment from involved parties – storage is, in relative terms, cheap to create and populate with a minimal workforce.
Good luck ‘mud-men’ from ‘Under the Bridge’
Yours sincerely,
Bread
By BREAD
Is this council turning garston into an area of highly toxic pollution
What happens if residents complain of pollution related illness
By Mark
This the old industrial estate between window lane, york st and blackburne st and brunswick st? If so, its an industrial estate. The whol earea is. What else are they going to do with it? No wonder nothing ever gets done in this country
By Anonymous
There is enough traffic going through Garston
As it is and we don’t need a further increase
By Anonymous
Increased traffic, increased pollution, worsening air quality, which in turn will contribute to worsening health to a demographic that already suffers with lower life expectancy and higher rates of morbidity. Over 2000 objections have been made expressing concerns on the impact that will be felt – and let’s face it – in turn, will cost more to the NHS with the increased respiratory health issues it will cause (plenty of credible research to back this up, look at the benefits of ULEZ zones already published) People in this area are treated like dirt. This includes our children – our future – what chance do they have with this kind of development in their back yards? Near to their school? Suggestions that grounds for refusal “do not appear strong” feel utterly Dickensian. I hope those in LCC that voted against this application can continue to call on their conscience and do what they know is right for the people of Garston, and not be bullied into changing their minds with threats of fines. The long term cost for all in Liverpool will be far greater if this is approved, than any short term investment it may bring now.
Seriously, it’s not rocket science is it? It is so well evidenced! Invest in people, not peleton!
Please treat the people of Garston like it’s 2025 and not 1825!
By Anonymous
Somehow, councillors also need to be asked, how would they feel if an extra one thousand five hundred lorries etc passed their homes each day between 7am & 11pm as well as noise nearby from stacking containers? . . . and how would it affect you and your family?
By Edna Dillon
It is clear that nobody in Garston wants this so please do not allow planning permission for it.
By Donald Hawley
Points around congestion and pollution and general objections towards the scheme have been successfully and repeatedly made both via the planning process and in this comments section. Further comments on this story will be reviewed with this in mind. Best wishes, Dan
By Dan Whelan
Why did planning officers recommend a proposal that is contrary to part of the Liverpool Local Plan? Surely they are there to uphold Liverpool City Council policy?
By R Hunter
The infrastructure is not in place for this to happen in such a small community, the traffic and busyness will make the residents lives a misery.
By Glynnis Carruthers