Peloton wins appeal over 11-acre Liverpool open storage
The city council has been ordered to cover some of the developer’s costs after the Planning Inspectorate concluded its committee had acted “unreasonably” in rejecting the Garston scheme.
MREF V Open Storage Solutions One, a joint venture between Peloton Real Estate and investor Moorfield Group, was informed of its success on Friday following a hearing held in November to determine the fate of the 11-acre open storage scheme once and for all.
Liverpool City Council’s planning committee rejected the proposal last spring despite being warned by officers that doing so would leave the authority vulnerable to a costly appeal.
Members were swayed by arguments from locals who feared increased noise and car pollution as a result of the project.
The site is located close to homes on Brunswick Street and York Street, which border it, and is allocated for employment uses in Liverpool’s local plan.
It was a acquired by the Peloton and Moorfield JV for £4m in 2022 as part of a wider £100m open storage strategy.
Liverpool City Council did not contest the air quality point at the inquiry, choosing to focus on the issue of noise.
However, the inspector concluded that while there would be “limited” impacts in terms of noise, there would be “no significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties with regard to noise associated with the proposed use of the site”.
The inspector also concluded that locals would not be significantly impacted by a reduction in air quality.
It is the issue of air quality that gave rise to the inspector’s decision to penalise the council in awarding costs to MREF V Open Storage Solutions One.
The inspector said the council had acted “unreasonably” as it “failed to substantiate its reason for refusal with regard to air quality matters, which it was still presenting as a concern well into the inquiry process”.
Savills advised the landowner through planning and the appeal process.
Can PNW follow up with LCC to find out exactly how much their unreasonable behaviour has cost us taxpayers by having to pay Peloton’s appeal costs?
By Anonymous
Terrible news! Disagree on the open storage matter but developers know that if they keep coming back the city councils are strapped for cash! There are plenty of things still going on that are deemed not dangerous but they are. Just watch Toxic Town – this is still going on in Italy. Its only years later we see the damage.
By Bob Dawson
Excellent
By Anonymous
The same familiar story with this Planning Committee being led by vociferous locals and their feeble councillors, both ignoring the advice of the Planning Officers. This will now result in costs for the Council , a situation they could do without. I am surprised in the past that more applicants who were refused by this committee didn’t take it to appeal, whether large or small.
I recall Itsu, 2 years ago, wanting to open a restaurant in Paradise St but the committee didn’t like their awning, OMG ,so Itsu gave up and haven’t bothered since as they are a national outfit and have better things to do than be messed around by the Liverpool Planners.
By Anonymous
Once again Councillor’s not doing their job and following the advice of the professionals. Time to surcharge Councillor’s for the cost of their behaviour.
By Russell P
Last week you had a story about Manchester council siding with a developer and now it’s getting over £200M of investment. Liverpool is decades behind not because of Thatcher or Tories but because it’s local politicians are utterly useless.
By Liverpool has no ambition
Its goes from bad to worse in that city
By Anonymous
I think there is a bit of a difference between Itsu restaurant and Peloton open storage….. agree the Itsu matter OTT – but dont think this should have got planning. It appears like things being looked at in Silo in this area – as there is the mega warehouse or whatever its called going in just down the road – traffic is HORRENDOUS around there already.
By Bob Dawson
Another planning committee being led by ill-informed councilors who do not understand the planning system and who are swayed by their voters, going against the recommendation of planning officers. And it’s the tax payers picking up the bill.
This is an employment site and the application was in accordance with its planning designation. It should have been approved from the outset. If residents had wanted housing on it, they should have gone through the local plan process to try and get it re-allocated. Instead, it has stood empty for years, adding no value to either the economy or environment. What a waste of time and money. Hopefully now this debacle is over we can finally see some investment go into that site.
By Anonymous
The council caved in to the same residents who make erroneous claims about air quality related to the nearby hazardous waste facility. This was pure politics: the councillors can say ‘look, we wanted it stopped, too, but those nasty out-of-town inspectors have gone against our wishes.’
The reality, of course, is that they wilfully ignored planning officers’ advice and have blown public money to salve their own political problems. PNW should attempt to identify how much of our money they wasted and councillors should be held liable when going against officers’ advice in this way.
By Disgruntled Liverpool ratepayer
Managed decline by a Labour Council. Run the city since 2010 and done nothing.
By Trevor
Council elections next year will be interesting. Yeah I know people vote Labour because their grandad did but surely enough is enough.
By Mr Ridgewell
What’s worse is that LCC hired a private sector planning consultancy to defend it’s decision, meaning the taxpayers in Liverpool are paying thrice – the officers’ salaries, the fees for the private sector planning consultant, and for Peloton’s out of pocket appeal costs! WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP IN LIVERPOOL?
By Anonymous
Speke and Garston are areas businesses want to invest in and develop, Liverpool needs jobs and investment as in the past we had big industries there like British Leyland, Dunlop, Metal Box, and so on.
We also have new outright owners at Liverpool Airport who have plans to expand and the City Council and City Region Mayor should be backing this to bring in more jobs.
By Anonymous
Get in Savills, fantastic result.
By Alan T
This is an extremely poor quality development that is not worth the intolerable disruption it will bring to its neighbours. The housing development proposal actually would have developed more employment (via sheltered housing) and tax revenue than this mess. Poor show. Some commentors are not familiar with the principles of local democracy and that elected representative should not just take orders from the staff in the planning department. They should exercise that broader overview.
By Quentin
It’s one thing the local councillors, concerned about losing votes, backing the protest groups, but the real blame is with the councillors on the Planning Committee who should know better and give the Planning Officers advice a bit more respect.
By Anonymous
Don’t vote them back in then!!!!!!
By Anonymous
Bob Dawson: January 12, 2026 at 3:10 pm – Claiming that the traffic around the area is ‘HORRENDOUS’ is literally laughable. I drop off to the dog daycare centre opposite this site almost every day and there are no traffic issues whatsoever, even during rush hour. The biggest issue is that LCC erroneously blocked vehicular access via King Street, when they could have simply introduced improved measures to restrict HGV access via this route. As a result, they have needlessly directed significant levels of additional traffic down Banks Road at peak times, making the roads around the schools more dangerous. This was an outrageous decision that was once again supported by the local ward members and showed a flagrant disregard for the safety of children. In terms of this development specifically, the local ward members commentary on social media is absolutely disgraceful. They are heavily pushing the narrative that it is somehow an affront to democracy that the appeal was allowed. The reality is that this land has laid derelict for years, and this is the only proposal that was on the table. The fact that the Council could barely defend its case at appeal says it all…
By MG
People who use words like “horrendous” and “catastrophic” to describe traffic congestion desperately need to get out more
By Anonymous
For all of the faults of LCC and in particular it’s planning/regen functions, surface storage is just about the least beneficial function designated employment land can be put to, particularly in a built-up area close to homes. Dropping stuff off any manner of bulky stuff there, whether by lorries or teleportation, and then just leaving it for an undetermined period really creates no jobs at all and if the site was in Gorton and not Garston there would be something useful going there, and it isn’t like there aren’t plenty of entirely uncontroversial places for storage.
Any failure here looks more to be LCC not having coherent policy rather than cllrs being unreasonable in considering the local community.
The comments on PNW are increasingly being taken over by the Skyscrapercity fanboys getting excited in their Build Baby Built hats to the point they seem to be repeating themselves all the time.
By Anonymous
@ Anon 12.06pm, this part of this locality was industrial, you only have to look at the photo attached to the article. The City Council earmarked the site for employment, and this is not a greenfield site. The inspector has looked at the matter in the round, while criticising the planning committee’s failings, it all looks above board to me.
By Anonymous
I don’t think it’s a policy issue – an application proposed development within B8 Use Class on a site that has long been allocated for employment and industrial uses (including B8 Use Class). I also think people (particularly certain local councillors) need to understand that just because the decision didn’t go the way they wanted, it doesn’t mean the decision was somehow undemocratic. Planning decisions aren’t made by public referendum, thank goodness!
By Anonymous
Given the cronic ASB the area, hope all future tenants of this site are well covered insurance wise and have the SAS as security, as they will need it.
By Barney