Redrow Allerton Priory Layout

Redrow wins with Allerton Priory appeal

Neil Tague

The North Wales housebuilder and its adviser Turley have won their appeal against the refusal of consent for 160 homes at the Liverpool site, with the lack of a five-year housing supply among the factors cited.

The proposal was refused planning permission by the city council in December 2016 due to its impact on wildlife, loss of trees and the adverse impact on the setting of the grade two-listed priory and the associated lodge building. The application had faced weighty opposition, with five petitions submitted, along with 194 objections from individuals and businesses.

The inquiry opened on 3 October last year and was closed in writing on 7 December. Two site visits were made.

Matt Grayson, Redrow spokesman, told Place North West: “We’re aware of the independent Planning Inspector’s decision. We know there will remain strong opinions, from all perspectives, regarding Allerton Priory. Our aim is to bring much-needed quality homes and jobs to the area.”

The main issues set out by Planning Inspector Olivia Spencer were the impact on the setting of the priory and lodge, both designed by noted 19th century architect Alfred Waterhouse, along with effect on the boundary wall, ecological impact, the impact on the Calderstones/Woolton ‘green wedge’ and the five-year supply of housing.

The Inspector noted that although the proposal would introduce housing, road and domestic gardens into an agricultural landscape, changing its character, “I conclude that the harmful effect on the significance of the listed buildings would be less than substantial”.

The submitted Section 106 proposal includes repair work to the boundary wall, regarded by the Inspector as a non-designated heritage asset, so that its effect on the boundary wall is considered overall to be beneficial.

Likewise, although the scheme would have an ecological impact, it was considered that the land management proposals, including the retention of mature woodland and the planting of open areas and off-site mitigation, would not adversely disrupt ecological networks. As far as the green wedge is concerned, “very little harm” would be caused by the scheme.

With delivery of housing as patchy in recent years in Liverpool as most locations, the establishment if a five-year supply is an inexact science, and the council and the appellant both agreed slippage from consented sites should be taken into account, although the rate of slippage was disputed.

Spencer’s conclusion that the “council can at best demonstrate only a 4.6 year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a reasonable likelihood that the actual supply is somewhere closer to 4 years” could have consequences for other sites.

One of the factors given considerable weight by the Inspector was Liverpool’s need for more “quality family homes” of the type proposed here, Spencer said.

She concluded: “The adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole. Accordingly the presumption in favour of sustainable development weighs in favour of the proposal.”

A Liverpool City Council spokesman told Place North West: “The council has been informed of the decision and is currently assessing its options.”

Sam Ryan, director at Turley, said: “This is an important appeal decision that emphasises the importance of ensuring local authorities provide a diverse mix of housing. The lack of good quality family housing has long been recognised as a significant issue in Liverpool.

“The Inspector gave substantial weight to this, and also agreed with the appellant’s case that the city is unable to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply. The benefits of the scheme, which also included the provision of a large area of public open space and improvements to an extensive boundary wall, secured the permission in the highly protected Green Wedge.”

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

What a surprise Hey? Redrow winning on another site in Liverpool? Don’t really think its befitting to say that this will fill the shortage of housing supply in Liverpool as these houses will be of the ‘executive’ kind that most people cannot afford.

By Lizzy Baggot

The facts are that Liverpool actually has a shortage of larger family homes and executive houses their local plan actually says so. This was one of the reasons why the planning inspectorate over-turned the original decision. Whether people like it or not this site will actually deliver on housing need criteria.

By Bday

I think people need to realise that sometimes, just occasionally…. those families that buy or move into these ‘executive homes’ are taking a step up the proverbial ladder and leave behind a smaller property which IS more affordable than the newbuild.
Likewise the people that move into that property can also free up another smaller property which may be fit for a first time buyer…

I was hoping it was obvious, but nevertheless – egg sucking lesson complete.

By PJ & Duncan

Do they actually buy? – the house maybe – but with the shifting price of the Redrow leasehold (which has been heavily publicised). Sometimes doubling from what was intimated when you purchased off plan then win win for Redrow and LCC I suppose.

By Lizzy Baggot

Common sense prevails. Sick and tired of NIMBY’s having far too big a voice. He who shouts loudest etc. In reality these are the types of properties Liverpool needs from both a demand and aspiration perspective – not my cup of tea mind. I say this as a south Liverpool resident and regular greenspace user

By CMW

Does anybody know when construction starts?

By Wizard

yet another victory for the big boys do we live in a democracy it makes me wonder when running to the government can over turn what is a local democratic decision

By pete liverpool

There are plenty of available quality family sized homes in Liverpool. The authorities just leave them to rot.

There are also plenty of decent places to build large homes in Liverpool. But the land doesn’t belong to the council, so can’t be flogged off by them.

How odd if the council didn’t manage to show a five year supply.

If those running the borough had spent more time, money and effort into growing the city’s commercial economy, perhaps there might have less need to hold car boot sales of parkland. And into the bargain, instead of half baked office developments on a fraction of the available plot, jobs that people go to every day would have been provided, as opposed to a small number of short term building assignments.

The sincerity of the original rejection was always debatable. As for the council’s “options”, now that the area has rightly turfed out its Labour councillors, and there is no election to worry about, I wonder how many “options” they’re looking at…

By Mike

Subscribe to our newsletter