Report to: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 17 February 2021

Subject: DC/2020/01437Aldi, Maghull, Land at Northway, Maghull.

Proposal: Erection of a foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing and hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing buildings and outline permission for the erection of two drive thru restaurants

Applicant: Aldi Supermarkets Ltd Agent: Emily Roberts Avison Young

Ward: Molyneux Ward

Reason for Committee determination:

Type: Part Full, Part Outline

Major application with more than 5 objections

Summary

The proposal seeks full planning permission for a new foodstore and access onto the A59 Northway and an outline application for a drive through coffee shop and a drive through restaurant.

Most of the site is in a Primarily Residential Area and this part of the site was last in use for car sales and includes a coffee shop. A small portion of the site to the south west adjacent to the proposed access lies within the Green Belt.

The part of the development in the Green Belt is ‘inappropriate development’ and by definition this is harmful. The harm caused by this, and any other harm from the proposal, must be clearly outweighed by ‘very special circumstances’.

The proposal may result in limited harm in terms of the impact on the highway and loss of trees. Though it is likely to have some effect on other retail centres, this is not thought to be a ‘significant adverse’ impact.

The proposal would bring a number of social, environmental and economic benefits. It is concluded that the benefits of the scheme comprise very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and all other harm. It is therefore considered that the policies of the NPPF, the Sefton Local Plan and the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan have been satisfied.

It is recommended that the application be approved with conditions and subject to a

unilateral undertaking to secure £30,000 towards the greening of Northway and buffer planting on land immediately adjacent to the application site.

Recommendation:

Approve subject to conditions and Unilateral Undertakings to secure £30,000 towards the greening of Northway and buffer planting on land immediately adjacent the application site. .

Case Officers Steve Matthews & Steve FaulknerEmail planning.department@sefton.gov.uk

Telephone 0345 140 0845

Application documents and plans are available at:http://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QEAF6RNWL5Z00

Site Location Plan

The Site

The site is to the south of Maghull, west of the A59 Northway. It comprises the former Motor Range car show room and a coffee shop which remains in use. There are residential properties to the north off The Crescent and Liverpool Road South and across Northway to the east.

There is open countryside to the west and the Switch Island junction is to the south.

History

There have been a number of planning applications on the site. Planning permission was granted for the use of the site for the sale of motor cars and light commercial vehicle movements in 1990 (S/1990/0223) and a change of use of the land from a petrol filling station to a car sales area was approved in 1999 (S/1998/0797) and subsequently implemented.

There is a recent permission (DC/2019/00826) for a sliver of land on the frontage of this site along the western side of the Northway carriageway to enable a shared footway/cycleway in association with wider carriageway improvements. This footway /cycleway is now in place.

Consultations

Environmental Health Manager No objections subject to conditions on the acoustic fence, and submission of details for the plant and machinery around the foodstore and for a condition for light and noise assessments to be submitted for the drive throughs.

Flooding and Drainage Manager No objections subject to conditions on flooding and drainage strategy.

Environment Agency

Object to any building works within 8 metres of a ‘main river’. Revised plans show an 8 metre wide, unobstructed easement left between the top of Dover’s Brook bank and the development.

United Utilities

No objections subject to conditions.

Arboricultural Officer

No objections - notes loss of a beech tree and a small group but acceptable planting provided in mitigation.

Air Quality Team

No objections after assessing an air quality assessment from the applicant subject to conditions to secure electric vehicle charging points and minimising of dust as part of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP).

Highways Manager No objections subject to conditions. There is a requirement to enter into a section 278 agreement for works on the adopted highway.

Contaminated Land Team No objections subject to conditions on further investigations on the site.

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service No objections subject to a number of conditions and that replacement planting does not favour grey squirrels.

Local Plans

No objections subject to findings of an up to date Retail Assessment.

Cadent Gas

No objections

Representations

Maghull Town Council

Do not raise a formal objection but raise the following issues to be addressed:

The pedestrian access via the flyover needs to be relocated to the new traffic lights.

Level of water discharge into Dovers Brook

The noise impact upon residents with lorries making deliveries

The impact of the development on the wider Maghull area

A danger of overlooking a neighbouring residential property

Appropriate section 106 contributions for the Maghull area

The number of traffic lights in the area to be examined for safety.

Representations were received from 33 addresses :

Support16 representations in support, mentioning the following:

create jobs for local people, regeneration, improved economy

healthy competition, increased choice, good produce at reasonable cost

would reduce travel from local residents who travel to an Aldi store elsewhere.

Objection15 objections received, mentioning the following:

Traffic

20,000 vehicles already use Northway; traffic congestion; concern over right turn lane, traffic very heavy and Switch Island is dangerous, traffic will back up to Switch Island; this will have a very bad impact

when hundreds of houses are built east of Maghull traffic will be even worse

another set of traffic lights will only cause more delays on already busy and long stretch of road – will be 7th set of lights on this stretch

public safety, accident blackspot

it will impact on the Lorries of which

there are many coming through Maghull even from the Ormskirk direction and the docks

implications of traffic on the environment, will increase carbon footprint

all the road works done around this area was so this could go through no matter who complains

Noise, pollution and effect on living conditions

concern over pollution from additional traffic as exterior of properties and cars constantly dirty with traffic dust - lots of children along the road now and health of residents should be a priority

noise assessment could not show correct impact as measured in October during pandemic when traffic greatly reduced, therefore not a true reading; the report refers to noise pollution from the car park - the traffic in and out of the site has not been taken into account and this vastly impacts on us residents living opposite

noise from air conditioning & fridge units

no objection to store, but object to drive-in takeaway – not an appropriate site for takeaways because of traffic. Plenty in vicinity – will cause smell

faces residential development – needs to be screened, requires continuation of hedges.

Impact and need

impact on Central Square

don’t need another supermarket

Neutral

Lets have shrubs trees and reduce noise

How will traffic turn right from Liverpool Road North?

What will happen to the lovely café on the site?

Peacock and Smith on behalf of Morrisons This letter considers the planning application submitted by the applicant and raises a number of concerns including:

Green Belt - The scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it does not meet any of the exceptions set out in NPPF. It is therefore by definition harmful to the Green Belt. There are no Very Special Circumstances to justify it and therefore the proposed development is contrary to the Green Belt policies and the NPPF and should be refused.

Retail Impact –o In retail impact terms, the Retail Impact Assessment has underestimated the

impact. Even on their own calculations set against company average, the development would have a significantly adverse impact of over 20% on the Morrisons store, which as a key anchor store would have a disproportionate impact on the town centre as a whole.

o In reality the impact on the store will be more significant as a direct comparison. This is likely to be in excess of 30% and would put the longer term future of the Morrisons store at risk, with the associated impact on the town centre as whole. The application can be refused on retail policy alone in accordance with the NPPF.

The application proposes infilling a watercourse. This watercourse is currently in the Green Belt and is the settlement boundary. It is a strong defensible boundary in accordance with advice on Green Belt outlined in the NPPF. This would be removed and replaced by a weakly defined boundary.

These objections are dealt with under the relevant headings in the report. A separate highways objection on behalf of Morrisons has been submitted by Exigo. Since then the applicants submitted an updated transport assessment addressing many of the issues raised and the Highways Manager’s comments also take account of the concerns outlined in that objection.

SCP on behalf of Lidl

Comments on highways issues were submitted by SCP consultants on behalf of Lidl. These have been assessed by the Highways Manager who is satisfied that they do not raise any fundamental issues. Some of the key points raised are summarised below together with the Highways Manager’s responses in italics.

Concern is expressed that there is not a signal controlled crossing along the desire line between the proposed development and Dover Road. The deviation for pedestrians using the existing layout is less than 150m in each direction which is not considered substantial when compared with the size of the residential area off Dover Road.

There is a query about lack of Saturday surveys. There are practical reasons why these could not be obtained. Their absence is not critical as the AM and PM weekday peaks are considered to be representative for the peak traffic flows.

It is alleged that the southbound bus stop is not accessible. It is accessible from the controlled crossings at the Dover Road / Liverpool Road south / Northway signal junction.

There is a query as to whether there would be appropriate pedestrian and cycle facilities leading to the site. There is a controlled pedestrian facility across Liverpool Road South installed as part of the improvement works and provision for appropriate pedestrian/cycle facilities leading into the site would be covered by condition.

There is concern that the most recent road safety statistics have not been used. A stage 1 / 2 Road Safety Audit would be submitted as part of the detailed design.

There is concern about the likely impact of the scheme on Switch Island. Switch Island is over 500m from the proposed junction and the mean maximum queue length from the proposed signal junction for northbound traffic is some distance from both the trunk road boundary and, still further back, Switch Island. Highways England are not a statutory consultee for this type of proposal, but their comments have been sought in any case and any comments will be reported as late representations or verbally at Committee.

Policy Context

The application site (1.39 hectares) largely lies within a Primary Residential Area as designated in the Sefton Local Plan which was adopted by the Council in April 2017. However a small area of 0.12 hectares adjacent to the access to the development lies within designated Green Belt, less than 10% of the total development site. Key policy designations in the Local Plan affecting the application site are shown on the plan on the next page.

The Maghull Neighbourhood Plan was ‘made’ (i.e. approved) in January 2019.

Local Plan designations relevant to the application site

Assessment of the Proposal

The Scheme and main issues

The scheme comprises a foodstore of 1,804m2 gross internal floorspace at the northern end of the site. The existing car showroom (848m2 gross internal floorspace) is also at the northern end of the site and will be demolished. Car parking, including disabled spaces and for parents and children, and motorcycle spaces are proposed immediately to the south.

A drive through coffee shop is proposed in the central part of the site just north of the existing coffee shop (172m2 ) which is to be demolished. A drive through restaurant is proposed further south within the site. Together these have a combined gross internal floorspace of 442m2.

All three units are to be served by a spine road running along the western edge of the site towards the southern edge of the site where a new signal controlled junction is proposed to provide access both north and south onto the A59 Northway.

The vast majority of the site is designated in the Sefton Local Plan as Primarily Residential Area. A small part to the southwest is in Green Belt which is where the access will be.

The main issues are as follows:

Principle of this development in a Primarily Residential Area

Impact on the Green Belt and harm caused

Impact on the vitality and viability of district and local centres

Design and layout impacts

Safe access, impact on the highway network and sustainable travel

Impact on living conditions of neighbouring properties

Ecology, trees and landscaping

Design and energy efficiency

Flooding and drainage.

Principle of this development in a Primarily Residential Area

Local Plan policy HC3, ‘Residential Development and Primarily Residential Areas’, states that non-residential development will be permitted in Primarily Residential Areas provided that it can be demonstrated that the proposal:

a. will not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, and

b. will otherwise not harm the character of the residential area, andc. will not undermine objectives of the plan regarding housing delivery.

Criterion (a) is considered in further detail later in this report under the heading “Impact on living conditions” but concludes there will be no conflict.

In respect of criterion (b), the area the site lies in is characterised by residential development on the eastern side of Northway and to the north and northwest. To the west and immediately to the south is open countryside.

Northway and Switch Island to the south also have an influence on the site character. The site is already in non-residential use and has not been occupied for residential purposes previously. The proposal will involve an increase in the intensity of the use of the site and an increase in use of the road. However, it will not harm the residential character of the area.

With regard to criterion (c), the site is not allocated for housing in the Local Plan and the site is not assumed to contribute towards the Council’s housing supply position.

There is therefore no objection to the development in relation to Policy HC3.

Impact on the Green Belt and harm caused

Can the proposal be considered to be ‘appropriate development’ in the Green Belt?

A small part of the south west part of the site (0.12ha) is in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out a number of forms of development which are ‘not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it’.

The applicant argues that this development falls within exception (c) which comprises “local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location”.

The applicant refers to two decisions which relied upon para.146 (c) as comparators to the application proposal. These are a ‘significant bypass’ in Northumberland and a large business and science park in Cambridgeshire (AgriTech).

However, it is considered that the sheer scale of these schemes mean that they do not readily compare with what is proposed in this instance. It can be understood why a bypass and a large expansion of employment land could be considered to meet the description ‘local transport infrastructure’. The AgriTech Park (which is closer in kind to the proposed development than the bypass) includes a bus/cycle interchange and pedestrian/cycle connections. Whilst much of this infrastructure would serve the AgriTech park, the fact that the connections were also available for general public use, was a key factor in determining that the works were local transport infrastructure.

So both comparators create routes that allow circulation and affect the wider transport system. By contrast, the current proposal is for the cul-de-sac servicing of a retail park.

The applicant also argues that as the site access road is to be dedicated as a public right of way some of which will be adopted and maintainable by the Local Highway Authority, it is by definition a ‘Highway’ and therefore must form part of the publicly available transport infrastructure for the local area. It is considered relevant that the access will have this status under Highways law. However, that status is not determinative of the planning judgement to be made under para.146 (c).

It is acknowledged that the meaning of the para. 146(c) exception is not defined precisely and has not yet been established through the Courts. However given that the development is serving a private retail development and has no wider public benefit, it is concluded that it does not satisfy para. 146 (c). It also does not fall within any other exception set out in para 146. The proposal must therefore be considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Para. 143 of the NPPF says “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

What harm to the Green Belt would be caused by the development?

The proposal will cause harm to the Green Belt by definition (NPPF para.143) and this must be given weight.

Two further aspects are considered relevant.

First, openness. Paragraph 133 notes that “the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence”.

The small incursion into the Green Belt (0.12 hectares) is to accommodate some landscaping and part of the footway and carriageway for the proposed development. Although no buildings are proposed within this area, there will be a significant amount of activity on this small section of Green Belt through comings and goings of vehicles, including delivery vehicles, and pedestrians. Though there would be no permanent structures, the visual openness of the Green Belt would be reduced through the regular traffic. This will result in some harm. The applicant has agreed to buffer planting in land adjoining the access to mitigate this, and this should significantly reduce this harm.

Second, the harm that is caused to the purposes of the Green Belt. The five purposes which Green Belt serves are set out in paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The proposal is assessed against these below:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

The proposal will extend out the built-up area of Maghull marginally. However, the only development on the Green Belt will be a small section of access road and it is considered the impact will be very limited. This results in a minimal harm to this Green Belt purpose.

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

The use of a small part of Green Belt land for an access road will not result in, or create the perception of, neighbouring towns merging and it is concluded that no harm to this Green Belt purpose results.

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

The proposal will marginally extend into the countryside causing minimal harm to this Green Belt purpose.

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

The proposal will have no impact upon historic towns as the site is not adjacent to one, and therefore will not result in harm to this Green Belt purpose.

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict andother urban land

The proposal re-uses a vacant brownfield site. In order to fully redevelop this site, the provision of a safe access requires a small amount of land in the Green Belt to be developed. To that extent, this facilitates urban regeneration and it is considered that no harm to this Green Belt purpose results.

In summary, it is considered that minimal harm would be caused by the development in relation to criteria (a) and (c) above.

It is concluded that the whilst some harm will result to the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness as set out above, this will be limited. There is also the definitional harm to the Green Belt (NPPF para.143). As paragraph 144 of the NPPF confirms that substantial weight must be attached to any harm to the Green Belt, very special circumstances will only exist if other considerations clearly outweigh this harm and any other harm.

This policy approach is reflected by Local Plan policy MN7 ‘Green Belt’.

It has been established that by virtue of the proposal being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it will in principle cause harm to the Green Belt. Further specific harm to Green Belt purposes has also been identified. The next step is to identify whether there are any ‘very special circumstances’ which outweigh this harm together with any other harm caused by the proposal.

Are there ‘very special circumstances’ which justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt?

The applicant sets out a number of benefits which they claim comprise very special circumstances.

This includes enabling the delivery of highway improvements to benefit Maghull including a strip of land along the full length of the eastern boundary of this site which the site owner worked collaboratively with Sefton Council to achieve (referred in the Planning History above, reference DC/2019/00826). This has enabled highways improvements along the western side of the Northway carriageway. However, these have already been implemented so these cannot be claimed to be very special circumstances to justify this development. Whilst the site owner’s cooperation with the Council is appreciated the benefit has already been delivered and is not dependent upon the grant of consent to this proposal.

The applicant argues that this proposal will improve a gateway site in a prominent position at the entrance to Maghull.

The applicant further claims the development will provide the following social, economic and environmental benefits:

Social

Jobs including those within the construction stage which would create a number of entry level positions.

The retail development alone would support up to 30-50 quality retail jobs, delivering indirect jobs through services that support the foodstore. These jobs alongside those that would be provided as part of restaurant offers would help improve employment in the area.

Economic

The number of jobs that would result from the development would enhance the economic impact that business currently generates in Maghull, contributing to a multiplier effect that would help improve business rates within the area.

The expenditure of employees of the proposed development will help support the local businesses across Maghull and the neighbouring area.

Environmental

By providing a retail development within an area that lacks retail offer outside of the town centre the proposal will reduce the distance customers have to travel to go shopping. The development will help meet a local need which will reduce travel time, diminishing the need to travel by private transport, encouraging sustainable modes of transport and reducing the impact on the environment and climate change.

The development will create a positive scheme with quality building design and landscaping adjacent to Green Belt land. It will visually enhance the area and create a positive effect on the local environment.

The demolition of the vacant building on site and the transformation of the land into new high-quality buildings would reduce the prospects of any anti-social behaviour occurring and the overall safety and appearance of the land.

Realising the potential for regeneration

The Highways Manager advises that a signalised junction for this site could only be safely constructed at this particular point on the frontage of the site given the highways’ constraints on the A59 both north and south. The proposed junction is an ‘all movements junction’ and has a full set of traffic signals. This will enable southbound traffic to turn right into the site and will avoid the likelihood of traffic doubling back, thereby adding to congestion at Switch island.

At the moment the access to the site is left in, left out on the northbound carriageway. This limited access is not suitable for the uses proposed for the site. The proposed arrangement will enable the site to be developed to its full capacity.

However, in order to operate safely the access must be a certain distance from the Dover Road junction in order to separate out the right turning lane for both accesses. This pushes the only safe point at which the junction can be constructed right to the southern end of the site. Given that the site tapers to a point at this end, in order to accommodate the junction and access satisfactorily a small amount of land outside of the site is required. This land is designated Green Belt. This area of Green Belt land (0.12ha) therefore enables the full development potential of the former Motor Range site to be realised.

The provision of this access would also mean that the existing access could be stopped up.

Whether these factors might collectively be considered to comprise ‘very special circumstances’ will be considered in the Planning Balance section at the end of the report.

Impact on the vitality and viability of district and local centres

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Sefton Local Plan provide the policy framework for assessing town centre uses. Proposals that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where they fail to satisfy the requirements of the ‘sequential’ approach or are likely to result in a significant adverse impact (NPPF, paragraph 90).

The application site is situated just over 1.5 kilometres from both Maghull district centre (which lies to the north), Old Roan local centre (which lies to the south) and Netherton (to the south-west). As such, it is ‘out of centre’ for the application of retail and town centre planning policy.

Sequential Assessment

The sequential test is described in paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF. “Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered” (para 86). A similar sequential test is set out in section 2 of Policy ED2 ‘Retail, Leisure and other Town Centre Uses’.

The Council’s retained retail consultants, Nexus Planning, have considered the potential for the application proposal (allowing for appropriate flexibility in respect of its format and scale) to be located in a sequentially preferable location. The appropriate area of search for this exercise has been based on a five-minute drivetime from the application site and incorporates the centres of Maghull, Old Roan and Netherton, and Aintree Retail Park (which is a sequentially preferable location in respect of the Local Plan by virtue of Policy ED2). Given the location of the application site, the sequential test must be considered with reference to the potential offered by sites within and at the edge of defined centres, and sites that are well connected to a defined centre.

Nexus has reviewed all the sites identified by the applicant and does not believe that any meet the requirements of being both available and suitable to accommodate the principal parts of the application proposal, even allowing for appropriate flexibility. Nexus has confirmed they are unaware of any other sequential preferable sites offering realistic potential to accommodate the proposal and therefore they find that it accords with the requirements of NPPF paragraphs 86 and 87 and Policy ED2(2) of the Local Plan.

Nexus’ report - ‘Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Policy Issues’ - is attached to this report as Annex 1.

Impact Test

Paragraph 90 of the NPPF also requires that retail proposals that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should not result in a significant adverse impact.

Policy ED2 (section 3) of the Sefton Local Plan states that, outside Primary Shopping Areas, impact assessments will be required for development which proposes more than 500m2 gross floorspace.

Given the scale and location of the application proposal, the retail impact arising from the proposed development needs to be formally assessed.

Impact is defined in NPPF paragraph 89 and should include assessment of:

a) the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

b) the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment.

In relation to the first part of this test (a), Nexus concludes that the grant of planning permission for the proposed foodstore would not lead to a significant adverse impact in respect of ‘existing, committed and planned public and private investment’. Whilst proposals are being progressed in Maghull district centre (namely Central Square which is subject to investment in the form of extensions to the existing units and continuing improvements to the public realm and car parking area), this is of a different nature and is substantially progressed. There is therefore no conflict with the first part of the NPPF impact test.

The second part of the NPPF impact test (b) relates to the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability. Following its review of the submitted retail impact assessment, Nexus finds that:

the proposed foodstore would trade substantially against the existing Lidl at Northway and Asda at Ormskirk Road (which are both situated in out of centre locations), and trade diversion from any defined centre would be limited in practice;

the Morrisons at Maghull district centre performs strongly and would continue to trade very well subsequent to the implementation of the application proposal;

no other retailers within Maghull district centre (or any other centre) would be the subject of an unacceptable trade diversion impact; and

the market served by the proposed food and drink units would differ materially from that served from Maghull district centre (and from any other centre), such that the impact arising from this element of the development is limited.

Nexus concludes that the level of trade diversion from Maghull – even when considered alongside the proposed extension to Marks & Spencer at Aintree – is relatively limited in the context of a Morrisons store that performs well. There would still be a need to travel into Maghull to purchase many day-to-day items (given that Morrisons, Home Bargains and other operators in Maghull offer many goods and services which Aldi does not), and there should not be any substantial loss of linked trips to Maghull district centre as a consequence of the proposal. Impacts arising at other centres will be very limited indeed.

The applicant’s submission utilises the recent Sefton household shopper survey (September, 2020) which will underpin the forthcoming Sefton Retail Strategy 2021. The survey shows that 56% of shoppers in the Maghull area undertake their main food shopping in the Maghull survey area. This compares with 71% of Formby residents who do their main food shopping in Formby and 88% of Southport residents who do their main food shopping in Southport. Therefore, Maghull currently retains a lower proportion of residents undertaking their main food shopping than both Southport and Formby.

Also 12% of residents in the Maghull area indicated they travelled to existing Aldi stores outside the town of Maghull, including the stores at Netherton, Fazakerley and Ormskirk, for their main food shopping.

This may indicate a latent demand for an additional choice of foodstores in the Maghull area and an Aldi store in particular. It may also suggest that an Aldi store in Maghull would reduce commuting to other Aldi stores beyond Maghull. This is borne out by some of the representations in support of the proposal in which people indicated they currently travel to an Aldi store elsewhere.

In undertaking its assessment on behalf of the Council, Nexus acknowledges that a number of Sefton’s centres are relatively fragile (including Bootle town centre) and it is generally concerned about the ongoing impact of Covid-19 in respect of centres’ vitality and viability. However, centres such as Maghull are generally more resilient to such pressures, given that they are focused around convenience shopping and other local needs. Whilst some vacant units are currently available in Maghull, the centre generally has a well-defined role meeting convenience needs and some day-today comparison and service needs. Nexus does not believe that the implementation of an additional discount foodstore (in close proximity to the existing Lidl) will materially impact on Maghull’s role.

As a consequence of the above, Nexus is satisfied that in-centre impacts arising from the proposal are limited and not of a magnitude that could reasonably be deemed ‘significant adverse’.

The proposal therefore also accords with the second part of the impact test.

One of the Local Plan’s ‘Principles of Sustainable Development’ (Policy SD2) is ‘to help Sefton’s town and local centres to diversify and thrive’. Nexus’ review suggests there is no evidence that this proposal will breach that principle.

Nexus therefore conclude that, subject to the proposal trading in the manner suggested by the applicant, no significant adverse impacts would arise in retail terms, and the scheme complies with the relevant policies of the Sefton Local Plan (ED2 and SD2) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, notably paragraphs 89 and 90.

This view is shared by the Chief Planning Officer and planning conditions would be attached to appropriately control the amount and type of retail sales proposed from the store.

Safe access, impact on the highway network and sustainable travel

The site includes an entirely new access onto the A59 Northway and access to a range of modes of transport. The scheme has been assessed by the Council’s Highways Manager.

Road Access

The proposed new access involves a signal controlled junction onto the A59. This is necessary as the scheme will involve a notable increase in vehicles using the site.

A number of objectors have expressed concerns about the impact upon the highways network both from the perspective of both road safety and congestion. Indeed, the options for access are limited by the A59 Northway and junctions to both the north and the south of the site, and the positioning of the junction has been selected with that in mind.

The recent Council scheme at the Northway / Dover Road junction was designed to include a longer right turn lane for traffic turning from Northway into Dover Road. If a new junction was proposed further north than what is currently shown this would reduce the length of the right turn lane and increase the risk that queuing traffic in the right turn lane would back-up into the straight ahead lane.

As part of the Council’s Northway / Dover Road junction design, officers reviewed the feasibility of adding a new access at the northern end of the former Motor Range site and making the existing signal junction into a five arm junction (it is currently classed as a four arm junction with A59 Northway north and south, Dover Road and Liverpool Road South). This provisional layout was modelled using traffic signal software and the results showed that the junction would operate less efficiently than what is currently proposed, with longer queues.

Accessibility

The site is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists who will be able to get around the site easily. The site is also accessible by public transport with bus stops within walking distance. The 2 metre wide footway accessing the site is acceptable.

It is proposed to provide 122 car parking spaces including 8 disabled spaces and 9 parent & child spaces (both close to the entrance to the store) for the proposed Aldi with a further 43 car parking spaces for the coffee shop and drive through element. This is within the minimum standard set out within Sefton’s guidance (‘Sustainable Travel and Development’) and this is acceptable.

The 5 parking spaces for motorcycles and 12 cycle parking spaces with secure staff lockers are all acceptable. The cycle parking is available for both staff and customers. The layout of the parking spaces within the site is satisfactory with the standard car parking space sizes of 2.5m x 5m.

Aldi will also provide 4 fast charging electrical vehicle charging points and also passive infrastructure for a further 20 points when required. More details will be required through a ‘reserved matters’ application for the drive through restaurant and coffee shops.

Accident records

The Transport Assessment (TA) includes a full record of injury accidents in a study area including all the key junctions which are identified for assessment during the most recent 5 year period up to 2019. Seven personal injury accidents were recorded during this period with two accidents recorded as serious and four recorded as slight in severity. The TA will be updated to include a serious accident last year.

The personal injury accident data would suggest that there is no particular pattern or trend of road traffic accidents in the vicinity of the site resulting from any deficiencies in the local highway network. As a result, it is considered that there is no reason to expect an increase in accidents across the local highway network as a result of this development.

It is recommended that conditions are attached to make sure that the existing access is removed and the details of the new access is agreed so it can operate safely.

Conditions can ensure that the car parking and manoeuvring areas are completed prior to first occupation, as well as the cycle parking installed.

A framework travel plan has been submitted and considered acceptable. However, a full travel plan including staff and visitors would need to be provided with an action plan within six months of the store opening. This can be covered by condition.

Other conditions include a requirement for a combined Construction Traffic and Environment Management Plan to ensure that operations are appropriately managed to avoid disruption to other users of the wider highway network, both from vehicular movements, and the spreading of mud off-site.

Providing a new traffic signal junction on a busy main road will inevitably affect the flow of traffic along that road. However, the number of completely new trips associated with the development will be limited. In the main, they will be transferred from other supermarket sites or will be linked with trips that are already taking place (e.g. calling at the supermarket or coffee shop on the way to or from other locations). In that sense, the key issues are how trips are re-distributed on the network and how the access junction would perform.

The Highways Manager doesn’t consider that there will be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on the road network.

He is satisfied that the opportunities to promote sustainable transport comply with Sefton’s guidance, that safe and suitable access is provided and that the significant impacts upon the local highways network are mitigated. The development is therefore acceptable in highways terms.

It is considered that the proposal complies with Local Plan policies IN2 ‘Transport’ and EQ3 ‘Accessibility’ and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF.

Impact on living conditions of neighbouring properties

The report referred earlier to impact on living conditions, under the heading of ‘Principle of this development in a Primarily Residential Area’.

It quoted Local Plan policy HC3, ‘Residential Development and Primarily Residential Areas’, section 2:

Non-residential development will be permitted in Primarily Residential Areas provided that it can be demonstrated that the proposal:

(a) will not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

Scale, design and layout of the buildings

The site is bounded to the north by residential properties off Liverpool Road South and the Crescent and to the east by residential properties off Northway. The impact upon these properties is considered here.

The proposed foodstore building measures 59.7 metres x 40.3 metres (maximum) with a mono-pitched roof of 5.2 metres in height at its lowest to the rear, and a maximum ridge height to the front (excluding overhang) of 8 metres. The lowest point of the roof to the rear would be positioned 9.5 metres from the rear site boundary.

The nearest residential properties to Liverpool Road South have rear aspects with large gardens which would be off set at roughly 40 degrees to the building and no significant harm occurs to outlook for these residents. The foodstore replaces an existing two storey pitched roof building of varied heights (but of less depth than the existing) and added to the screening provided from existing mature vegetation to the rear, and with the length of gardens to nos 1, 3 and 5 Liverpool Road South between 20 to 40 metres, due to their angled rear boundaries, it is not likely that there will be any significant overshadowing or loss of light.

Two staffroom windows are proposed in the north eastern corners of the building that face the properties on Liverpool Road South. They are at a ground floor level and are screened by the proposed 2.4 metres high close boarded timber fence and the existing boundary vegetation described above. As such there would be no loss of privacy.

The proposed supermarket building and drive though restaurant and coffee shop would have a very limited impact upon properties on the other side of Northway due to the more substantial distance between them.

Noise and disturbance

The proposal for both the foodstore and the proposed drive through restaurant and coffee shops are likely to draw significantly more people onto the site than with the previously lawful uses and this view is supported by the transport assessment.

There will be noise and disturbance from cars coming and going, slamming of car doors, pushing of trolleys and delivery lorries. There will be plant and machinery connected with the uses of both the supermarket and the drive through. These may include extraction systems, refrigeration, heating and air conditioning systems.

A noise assessment has been completed by the applicant and the Environmental Health Manager accepts its recommendations. Acoustic fencing is recommended to enclose the service yard and would be controlled by planning condition. Full details of the external plant and equipment can also be controlled by condition once they are chosen.

It is accepted that the A59 already creates a considerable amount of background noise. Against this background, day to day noise on site might not seem too significant. However, it is also recognised that at night time when there is less background traffic on the road, the impact of noise from comings and goings will be felt more keenly. The application requests opening hours of 0700 to 2200 Monday to Saturday, and 0900 to 1900 Sundays and Bank Holidays. It is recommended that a condition be added to prevent opening beyond those hours.

A lighting impact assessment has been submitted for the foodstore and is acceptable. A condition would be required to ensure the proposed scheme is implemented.

It is also recommended that a condition be added for all external lighting (drive throughs only) and noise assessments.

Subject to the above, there are no conflicts with Policy EQ4 (1c), ‘Pollution and hazards’ of the Sefton Local Plan.

Contaminated Land

The site was a former petrol filling station and may have the potential to have some ground contamination. The developer therefore submitted a Geo-Environmental Assessment covering the supermarket part of the site. Details will be needed in the reserved matters application for the drive through units.

It is considered that sufficient information has been submitted at this stage. The initial assessment shows that the soil chemical testing does not exceed the general assessment criteria for a commercial site and that the soils are suitable to be retained on site. Some dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons have been found in the groundwater in parts of the site connected to the previous use as a petrol station.

The submitted report makes recommendations regarding protecting Dover’s Brook and a secondary watercourse from these contaminants. There is no objection to the scheme from the Council’s Contaminated Land Manager on contaminated land grounds but conditions would need to be attached for further investigations, site characterisation, the submission of a remediation strategy, the production of a verification report and for the reporting of any unexpected contaminants.

Subject to this, the scheme complies with Policy EQ6, ‘Contaminated Land’.

Air Quality

As the site is directly accessed from the A59 at a new signalised junction, and close to residential development, the impact of the development upon air quality is a relevant consideration.

An air quality assessment has been submitted with the application. The assessment has concluded that there will be no unacceptable impacts upon air quality. This has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Manager who agrees with this assessment.

The scheme therefore complies with Policy EQ5, ‘Air Quality’.

In summary, the scale and design of the supermarket building and its overall layout would be unlikely to result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Disturbance from general noise of comings and goings and also from plant and machinery can be controlled by conditions as can issues arising from possible contamination of the land. In view of this, the scheme is considered to comply with section 2a of Policy HC3.

Ecology, Trees and Landscaping

The site has a number of trees on the boundaries of the site. Most of these are to be retained to the north and northwest of the site, but some will be lost to the west and south of the site.

None of the trees on site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There is a prominent beech tree at the south end of the site close to the proposed access. As discussed above, this is the optimal location for the road junction. To move it further north would adversely impact the Dover Road junction further up the A59, and to move further south would impact the highway southwards and further encroach upon the Green Belt. The beech would therefore have to be lost in order to accommodate the access.

Given the above, the applicant proposes to provide a prominent cluster of trees on the Northway frontage further to the north. It had initially been proposed that one of those trees would be beech. However, this site is immediately adjacent to the red squirrel ‘buffer zone’ and beech is a known preferred species for grey squirrel. It is therefore proposed to plant lime instead as a broad leaved tree, and to include Scots pine which is preferred by red squirrels.

The proposed replacement planting scheme proposes 16 trees all of which are ‘extra heavy standards’ which when planted will be approximately 4.5m in height. Nine of the 16 trees are Lime with three Birch and four Scots Pine. The lime are situated to the front of the site adjacent to the highway with the other trees located to the rear of the site. The trees along the frontage to Northway, where at the moment there is little tree cover, would make a considerable impact in “greening the site” and would improve the appearance of the site from the road as well as from residential properties on the far side of Northway.

The site faces the relatively flat landscape of the Alt valley. The site is fairly open with some trees along the boundaries. Buffer planting is proposed along the south western boundary of the site adjoining the access road. This will overcome concern about the impact of a busy access road on the openness of the Green Belt. The land is not in the same ownership as the rest of the site and the tree planting will be secured through a unilateral undertaking.

The foodstore, whilst taller than the existing, will not be a disruptive feature on the landscape.

In view of the above, the scheme complies with Policy EQ9 (7) in respect of trees and landscaping.

Design and Energy Efficiency

The facing materials to the front of the store consist of some understated grey cladding mixed with metallic silver cladding and glazing. From the public frontage onto Northway, the scheme contains a significant amount of glazing and presents a high quality frontage to the street. The cladding to the west side and rear (north side) will be partially screened by either existing trees or proposed tree planting.

The site is mostly bounded to the east and west by a 450mm high (18 inches) knee high timber rail, as well as some existing and proposed planting. There is proposed to be a 2.4m (8ft) high small amount of timber fence at the north of the site to provide some security to the site and this will also provide some privacy for neighbours.

Much of the foodstore would be reasonably well screened by trees. The boundary treatment to the north west of the site is an acoustic timber fence around the service yard.

The foodstore includes a whole series of measures to reduce energy usage in lighting, refrigeration and reduce water wastage as well as using recycled materials. The proposal also includes provision for electric vehicle charging points.

There are views into the site from public footpaths in the countryside to the west of the site, and from the main road to the east of the site as well as vehicles travelling north to south. It is considered that the scheme is well designed and proportional to its context, and responds well to its setting and surroundings. The site is also a “gateway site” to the south of Maghull for vehicles heading northwards. It is considered that the proposal is an acceptable form of development given that location.

Detailed design and layout for the drive through restaurant and coffee shop will need to be considered through a ‘reserved matters’ application. However, their indicative siting is considered acceptable.

It is considered that the proposed supermarket and car park, landscaping and access complies with Local Plan policy EQ2 Design.

Flooding and drainage

The Flooding and Drainage Manager initially objected to this proposal but his concerns have been addressed following a revised Flood Risk Assessment which shows reduced runoff rates. The ‘brownfield’ runoff rate was calculated at 88 litres / second and reducing it to 5 litres / second (which is just below ‘greenfield’ rate), would significantly reduce any flood risk from this development to downstream properties. This is an example of how through sustainable development existing flood risk can not only be managed but reduced.

The Environment Agency had objected that there was not a clear area of 8 metres from the top of the bank of Dover’s Brook to the development. Amended plans have been submitted to achieve that distance.

Maghull Town Council raised concern about the level of discharge into Dover’s Brook. The Flooding and Drainage manger is satisfied that this is at an acceptable level.

Concern has been raised that the access builds over part of a tributary to Dover’s Brook. This would require separate Land Drainage Consent from the Environment Agency. The ditch would be rerouted along the revised boundary and further details of this are required by condition.

The proposal deals with drainage and possible flood risk satisfactorily and complies with Local Plan policy EQ8 - ‘Flood Risk and Surface Water’.

Maghull Neighbourhood Plan - Green Corridor

The Maghull Neighbourhood Plan aims to improve “Green Corridors” within the town. In particular, it identifies that the north-south corridor along Northway is in need of enhancement and protection. Policy MAG5 ‘Green Corridors’ proposes that development must not harm green corridors and Policy MAG 1 ‘Infrastructure Projects’ specifies how Maghull expects development to contribute towards infrastructure in the area.

The developer has proposed planting trees along the western boundary of the A59 Northway. This would enhance the appearance of area which has much less highway verge planting compared with the A59 immediately to the north and through Maghull. The developer has considered how they can address these issues.

The developer has agreed to make a £30,000 contribution towards enhancing the Green Corridors as set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. This is likely to allow for some significant Green Infrastructure benefits for the area and complies with the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan. This will be secured through a Unilateral Undertaking.

Other issues

Waste management The Merseyside and Halton Waste Local Plan policy WM8 requires appropriate waste management for construction waste. This will form part of the condition requiring a Construction Environment Management Plan.

Response to Maghull Town CouncilMost of Maghull Town Council’s comments have been addressed in the report. The remainder are set out below together with a response in italics:

The pedestrian access via the flyover needs to be relocated to the new traffic lights.

The existing pedestrian signal crossing near the River Alt was installed to link a Public Right of Way either side of the A59. The Council have confirmed their intention to keep this crossing in its current location to serve this purpose.

Request for appropriate section 106 contributions for the Maghull area

There is a clear legal framework for requesting planning obligations through a section 106 agreement. Their purpose is to mitigate the impact of development and they can only be secured if they meet three specific tests, namely:

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

directly related to the development; and

fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Planning obligations will often be in the form of on-site improvements, which is the preferred approach. The Section 106 process is not a levy on new development. The report includes two obligations which are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Planning Balance

This proposal for a discount food store and drive through restaurants includes a small area of Green Belt (0.12 hectares). This is 8.6% of the total site area.

The section on “Impact on the Green Belt and harm caused” earlier in the report set out the relevant arguments. The applicant argues that the proposal comprises local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location and therefore meets one of the exceptions in para 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Although there is uncertainty about how this exception should be interpreted, it is not accepted that this proposal falls within para.146.

The development is therefore the considered to be inappropriate and so would cause harm to the Green Belt by definition.

In addition it would harm the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and also cause harm by the loss of openness.

This section above concluded there would be limited harm to the Green Belt but NPPF advice is that such harm must be given substantial weight in coming to a decision. ‘Very special circumstances’ must be demonstrated to outweigh that harm and any other harm caused by the proposal.

What does ‘very special circumstances’ mean? A court judgment (Sullivan J in Basildon BC v First SoS [2004] EWHC 2759 (Admin)) considered this test and concluded “There is no reason why a number of factors ordinary in themselves cannot combine to create something very special”.

The applicant argues that the scheme provides highway improvements. These have already been provided so the development in the Green Belt is not required for these.

The applicant puts forward a number of social, economic and environmental benefits, including the significant improvement of a derelict gateway site at the southern approach to Maghull with high quality development, creation of 30-50 permanent jobs with training opportunities, and wider economic benefits to Maghull. The construction process would also generate opportunities for local labour and these measures could be secured by condition. The positive economic benefits weigh in favour of the development having regard to Local Plan Policy SD2 ‘Principles of Sustainable Development’.

The applicant also cites environmental benefits through shoppers not travelling to Aldi stores beyond Maghull. The household shopper survey confirms that it would meet a local demand for an Aldi store but it is difficult to forecast what the future pattern of trips would be and whether this would be totally beneficial when compared to traffic generated.

In order to fully redevelop this site, the only possible safe point of access requires the access road to be configured in such a way that it involves a small amount of land in the Green Belt. This area of Green Belt land therefore enables the development potential of the former Motor Range site to be realised through allowing traffic to access the site from both north and south by a signal controlled junction.

This would not happen with the current ‘left in, left out’ access, which could only support a use which attracts a smaller number of trips. Uses which generate more trips would result in traffic doing a U turn, in effect going through Switch Island or into local residential areas to approach the store or on leaving the store, thus causing additional congestion.

This is considered to be a significant benefit weighing in favour of the scheme.

The development will also provide £30,000 towards providing green infrastructure in the local area which would contribute towards the aims of the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan and benefit the community long term. The proposed new landscaping would provide a more attractive and pleasant frontage to Northway with ecological benefits. However this is in response to the Maghull Plan and is not considered to be part of a package of benefits to outweigh harm to the Green Belt.

An important characteristic of the Green Belt is its openness and the fact that it will become a busy thoroughfare would affect its openness. This is the case even though there are no buildings or structures on that part of the site. However, the applicant has proposed buffer planting along this boundary which would substantially screen the access from views from public footpaths to the west of the site. This planting is on land immediately outside the site but in the same ownership and can be secured through a unilateral undertaking.

In terms of other harm, there will be an additional junction with traffic signals on the A59 which will affect the flow of traffic. However, the traffic generated to the Aldi store is likely to be mainly trips redistributed within the local highway network so this is not considered to result in a severe impact.

The proposal will have some impact on Maghull centre and other local centres which are ‘sequentially preferable’ in retail terms, but this is not estimated to cause significant harm.

There will be the loss of a small number of existing trees on the site, including a mature beech tree where the access will be, but these will be replaced with ‘extra heavy standard’ specimens which will compensate for their loss by providing an established landscaping scheme from the start.

Other harm can be mitigated through conditions.

In summary, harm will be caused to the Green Belt, by definition, by virtue of the proposal being inappropriate development. There will be minimal harm caused to the purposes which Green Belt serves (the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and encroachment

into the countryside). The harm caused will be across a very small area of Green Belt. Collectively this harm is given substantial weight.

There may be some limited harm in terms of the impact on the highway and loss of trees. Though there will be an effect on other retail centres, this is not thought to be a ‘significant adverse’ impact.

However, the proposal will bring a number of benefits outlined above, principally bringing back a derelict site into productive use. This will be facilitated by the provision of a fully signalised junction which could only be accommodated by using a small amount of land in the Green Belt.

It is considered that on balance the benefits of the scheme comprise very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and all other harm. It is considered that the policies of the NPPF, the Sefton Local Plan and the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan have been satisfied.

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved with conditions and subject to a unilateral undertaking to secure £30,000 towards the greening of Northway and buffer planting on land immediately adjacent the application site.

Recommendation - Approval with conditions and subject to a Unilateral Undertakings to secure £30,000 towards the greening of Northway and buffer planting on land immediately adjacent the application site.

CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO WHOLE SITE UNLESS EXPRESSLY SPECIFIED:

1) The development of the foodstore hereby permitted shall begin no later than five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan 2722NESW-100Existing Site Plan 2722NESW-101Demolition Plan 2722NESW-102Proposed Site Plan 2722NESW-103 Rev FFoodstore Proposed GA Plan 2722NESW-104 Rev AFoodstore Proposed Elevations 2722NESW-105 Rev AFoodstore Proposed Roof Plan 2722NESW-106 Rev AFoodstore Proposed Roller Shutter Detail 2722NESW-107Proposed Boundary Treatment 2722NESW-108 Rev D

Proposed Substation 2722NESW-109AEasements Plan 2722NESW-121Landscape Plan 2722-VL L01 Rev G

Noise Impact Assessment Report October 2020Framework Travel Plan (Appendix C of Transport Assessment)Flood Risk Assessment October 2020Sustainability Statement December 2019

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

3) No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance.

4) A scheme of noise control for any plant and equipment to be installed on buildings or land shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its installation. The scheme of noise control shall demonstrate compliance with the maximum noise emission limits set out in the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hepworths (October 2020). The approved scheme shall be implemented and shall thereafter be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby properties.

5) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following highway works and a timetable for their completion has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i) The closure of redundant accesses to Liverpool Road South and the reconstruction of the footway thereof along the frontage.

ii) Details of the proposed new vehicular/pedestrian access from the A59.iii) The introduction of tactile paving and dropped kerbs on each side of the new

vehicle access to the site positioned at the back of the footway along the desire line on each side of the access.

iv) The re-enforcement of the kerb radii on both sides of the access in order to be able to withstand overrunning by articulated vehicles.

v) Details of visibility in accordance with DMRB CD123 Part 7 for signal visibility and junction inter-visibility at the proposed signal controlled junction ensuring it is maintained thereafter.

The highway works as approved shall be completed prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure a continued free flow of traffic on the A59 trunk road.

6) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and

approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CEMP shall be carried out as approved and adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall provide for:

i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials. iii) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. iv) Details of all piling works including methodology, hours and duration of works. v) Hours of construction work. vi) On-site wheel washing facilities. vii) Management measures during the construction period to ensure the free flow of

traffic on the highway network.viii) Details of all construction vehicle routing.ix) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition, construction

and any piling works. x) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and

construction works. xi) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays

and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate. xii) The drainage of the site whilst ensuring the protection of the surface water

system, including Dover’s Brook, from pollutants, contamination and construction debris.

xiii) A detailed scheme precluding the storage of building materials within a minimum of 5 metres of the top of the bank of Dover’s Brook including details of methods of protection to this zone has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed measures shall be retained thereafter during the construction period.

Reason: This is required prior to the commencement of development to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users during both the demolition and construction phase of the development.

7) The acoustic barrier detailed on drawing no. 2722 NESW-108 Rev D and as set out in the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hepworths (October 2020) shall be erected around the service yard of the foodstore shall be erected before the service yard becomes operational, and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

8) No development other than any demolition works shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall be based on sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles and provisions set out in the Flood Risk Assessment by Integra Consulting (October 2020). It shall also include details of future management and maintenance to ensure it remains effective for the lifetime of the development. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

9) No development other than any demolition works shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul sewerage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

10) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the areas for car parking to be provided for each unit (including customer signage), cycle parking and a minimum of four electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the details on Drawing No: 2722NEWS 103F. These parking areas shall be retained for their intended purpose during the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that enough cycle parking is provided for the development in the interest of promoting non-car based modes of travel whilst facilitating the use of electric vehicles to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

11) Within 6 months of the opening of the foodstore hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall follow the general principles, strategies, review and monitoring arrangements set out in the Framework Travel Plan contained within Appendix C of the Transport Assessment prepared by Cameron Rose Associates (495-01/TA01 Rev B). The approved Travel Plan shall be in place for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To meet sustainable transport objectives including a reduction in single occupancy car journeys and the increased use of public transport, walking & cycling.

12) All landscaping as shown on drawing no. 2722-VL-L01D shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following first occupation. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

13) No tree which is to be retained shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, or have surgery undertaken, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, within 1 year from the completion of the development. Any such trees removed or dying shall be replaced with trees of a size and species to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in the next available planting season.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

14) A Landscape Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation and shall be carried out as approved with its provisions implemented during the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

15) The approved bin store shown on drawing no. 2722NESW-103 Rev F shall be provided before the store is open for trading and shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within the development for refuse storage and recycling.

16) No outdoor recycling facilities shall be provided at any time without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development and to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

17) No tree, shrub or hedgerow felling, or any vegetation management and/or cutting operations shall take place during the period 1st March to 31st August inclusive unless any such works are supervised at all times by a qualified professional ecologist.

Reason: To protect birds during their breeding season.

18) The measures in the Aldi Stores Sustainability Statement dated December 2019 shall be incorporated into the design of the foodstore and shall be available for use before it is open for trading. The measures shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that the development contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions using low carbon, decentralised and renewable energy measures.

19) All external lighting on the buildings hereby permitted and within the site boundary shall be housed in full cut-off lanterns with an angle of elevation set no higher than 5 degrees from the horizontal to limit sky glow and glare.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

20) The foodstore hereby permitted shall be subject to the following restrictions:

i) The total gross internal floorspace shall not exceed 1,804 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

ii) The net retail floor area (excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the checkouts) shall not exceed 1,332 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

iii) The total retail sales area for the sale and display of convenience goods shall not exceed 1,066 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

iv) The total retail sales area for the sale and display of comparison goods shall not exceed 266 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

v) The foodstore shall be used for the sale and display of retail goods as set out in (iii) and (iv) above and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby district and local centres.

21) The foodstore hereby permitted shall be used as a single unit and shall not be subdivided into two or more retail units without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby district and local centres.

22) No concession units shall be provided within the foodstore without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby district and local centres.

23) Prior to commencement of development (other than demolition works above slab level) a preliminary investigation must be prepared in accordance with best practice and current guidance. The report must include:

i) Desk study ii) Site reconnaissance iii) Data assessment and reporting iv) Formulation of initial conceptual model v) Preliminary risk assessment

If the Preliminary Risk Assessment identifies there are potentially unacceptable risks a detailed scope of works for an intrusive investigation, including details of the risk assessment methodologies, must be prepared by a competent person (as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019). The contents of the scheme and scope of works are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,

ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

24) Prior to commencement of development (other than demolition works above slab level) the approved scope of works for the investigation and assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report should include an appraisal of remedial options and identification of the most appropriate remediation option(s) for each relevant pollutant linkage. The report is subject to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

25) Prior to commencement of development (other than demolition works above slab level) a

detailed remediation strategy to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by

removing unacceptable risks and the relevant pollutant linkages identified in the approved

investigation and risk assessment, must be prepared and is subject to the approval in

writing of the Local Planning Authority.

The strategy must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and roles and responsibilities. The strategy must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on completion of the development and commencement of its use.

In the event that the proposed remediation scheme involves the provision of a ground cover system a plan indicating the existing and proposed external ground levels on the application site shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

26) The approved remediation strategy must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report that demonstrates compliance with the agreed remediation objectives and criteria must be produced and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of use of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the

development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

27) In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development immediate contact must be made with the Local Planning Authority and works must cease in that area. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, verification of the works must be included in the verification report required by condition 26.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

28) The foodstore shall not be open for trading outside the following hours:

Monday to Saturday: 0700-2200 hrsSundays and Bank Holidays: 0900-1900 hrs

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

FURTHER CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO THE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS:

29) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or two years from the date of the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

30) Details of the reserved matters set out below shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission:

(i) Scale(ii) Appearance

Approval of all reserved matters shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92(as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

31) A scheme of odour control for any kitchen or other extraction systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to their installation. The approved odour control scheme shall be implemented on site before the extraction system is brought into operation. Thereafter it shall be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby properties.

32) No development shall take place above slab level until a scheme for refuse storage and recycling for each unit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within the development for refuse storage and recycling.

33) The details supplied by the reserved matters shall confirm the proposed opening hours of each unit/units.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of nearby properties.

34) The units hereby permitted shall be used for the sale of food and drink for consumption (mostly) on the premises and/or by drive-thru customers and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby district and local centres.

Planning Application Reference DC/2020/01437 Land at Northway, Maghull

Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Policy Issues

on behalf of Sefton Council November 2020

Annex 1

Contact Eastgate 2 Castle Street Castlefield Manchester M3 4LZ

T: 0161 819 6570 E: info@nexusplanning.co.uk

Job reference no: 34936

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 3

Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.0 Planning Policy Context ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 The Sequential Test ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

4.0 The Impact Test ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19

5.0 Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 26

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 4

1.0 Introduction

Instruction

1.1 Sefton Council (hereafter referred to as ‘the Council’) has instructed Nexus Planning to provide advice

in respect of planning application reference DC/2020/01437. The application relates to a site at

Northway in Maghull and seeks full planning permission for: the demolition of existing buildings and

the erection of a foodstore (Class A1) with associated access, car parking, servicing and hard and soft

landscaping; and outline permission for the erection of two drive thru restaurants (Class A3/A5). The

site was formerly occupied by the ‘Motor Range’ car sales operation and also accommodates the Tinto

Coffee House on the southern part of the site.

1.2 The application was submitted by Aldi Stores Limited and was validated on 11 August 2020. It is

accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including a Planning and Retail Statement

(dated July 2020), prepared by Avison Young. The Planning and Retail Statement has been partly

superseded by a subsequent supporting letter from Avison Young (dated 9 November 2020), which

updates the applicant’s retail case based on the findings of a new household shopping survey

undertaken across Sefton Borough1. A further letter from Avison Young (dated 13 November 2020)

provides further clarification in respect of the sequential and impact tests.

1.3 The purpose of this appraisal report is to consider the merits of the application in terms of its

compliance with retail and town centre planning policy, as set out by the statutory development plan

and by the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’).

Proposal and Application Site

1.4 The application site comprises approximately 1.5 hectares of previously developed land and is located

off the A59 Northway, close to its junction with Liverpool Road South. An existing Lidl foodstore is

located a short distance to the north, on the other side of the A59. The application site is situated just

over 1.5 kilometres from both Maghull district centre (which lies to the north) and Old Roan local centre

(which lies to the south). As such, the site is clearly ‘out of centre’ for the application of retail and main

1 The household shopping survey was undertaken by NEMS in September and October 2020, principally to inform the Sefton Retail Strategy Review which will report in early 2021

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 5

town centre planning policy.

1.5 Key details of the application proposal are provided by paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the Planning and

Retail Statement which state that:

‘The proposal is to form an Aldi foodstore with a sales area of 1,332m², with additional warehouse, staff

and office facilities, totalling 1,804m² gross internal area (1,880m² gross external area). The scheme

provides a total of 122 car parking spaces; 8 no. Disabled spaces, 8 no. parent and child spaces, 2 no. EVCP

spaces, 14 no. cycle spaces (7 hoops) and 5 motorcycle bays located within the car parking area.

The outline drive through proposal includes two units; a Coffee Drive Through unit totalling 168m² gross

internal area (198m² gross external area) and a Drive Through Restaurant totalling 274m² gross internal

area (309m² gross external area). Shared parking facilities are provided for the two drive through units

totalling 43 car parking spaces; 5 no. Disabled spaces, 12 no. cycle spaces (6 hoops) and 2 motorcycle bays.’

1.6 Paragraph 8.17 of the Planning and Retail Statement indicates that 80% of the identified net retail sales

area will be dedicated to convenience goods (equating to 1,066 sq.m) and 20% to comparison goods

(266 sq.m). We also note that the drive thru units are submitted in outline with no specific operators

associated with the proposal (even on an indicative basis), and no indication as to when this part of the

development would come forward in practice.

Structure of Our Report

1.7 In the above context, our appraisal focuses on the proposal’s compliance with retail and town centre

planning policy as set out by the statutory development plan and by the NPPF. All other planning

policy matters and other material considerations fall outside the scope of our instruction and it will be

necessary for the Council to take appropriate account of such matters in its determination of the

application.

1.8 Our report is therefore structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the retail and town centre planning policy of relevance to the application

proposal;

Section 3 considers the compliance of the proposal in respect of the sequential approach to

development;

Section 4 considers the applicant’s approach in assessing the impacts arising from the proposal;

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 6

and

Section 5 provides our conclusions in respect of the compliance of the application proposal with

retail and town centre policy, and our recommendations in respect of the Council’s consideration

of the application.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 7

2.0 Planning Policy Context

2.1 We identify below the principal planning policies of relevance to retail and town centre matters.

National Planning Policy Framework

2.2 The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the revised NPPF’) was published

in February 2019. It emphasises the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth and

building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. With regard to the assessment of proposals

for main town centre development, the revised NPPF provides two principal national policy tests

relating to the sequential approach to development and to impact.

2.3 In respect of the first of the two tests, paragraph 86 of the revised NPPF states that local planning

authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are

not in accordance with an up-to-date plan.

2.4 Paragraph 86 goes on to state that:

‘Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if

suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of

centre sites be considered.’

2.5 Paragraph 87 then identifies that:

‘When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible

sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should

demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town

centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored.’

2.6 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF sets out a twin impact test, stating that:

‘When assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in

accordance with an up-to-date plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the

development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold,

the default threshold is 2,500 sq.m of gross floorspace). This should include assessment of:

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 8

the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a

centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and

trade in the town centre and wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the

scheme).’

2.7 Paragraph 90 indicates that, where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have

a significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. However, this

direction cannot extinguish the requirement set out in statute to first consider development plan policy

and then all material considerations in assessing the ‘planning balance’ when making a decision.

Adopted Development Plan

2.8 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that:

‘…if regard is to be had to the Development Plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under

the planning acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.’

2.9 The statutory development plan in this instance is the Local Plan for Sefton, which was adopted in April

2017.

2.10 The Local Plan Policies Map identifies that the application site is principally located within the Primarily

Residential Area (with a limited part being within the Green Belt). In retail terms, Policy ED2 is of

particular relevance.

2.11 Policy ED2 relates to retail and other main town centre uses, and sets out the tests to be applied to

such development. The policy sets out a hierarchy for development (with Bootle and Southport town

centres at the top) and provides a sequential test which indicates that:

‘Proposals for all retail, leisure and other main town centre uses will be subject to a sequential approach to

development. This will require applications for town centre uses to be located firstly in:

a. Primary Shopping Area (retail uses only), then

b. Town, district and local centres (in accordance with the hierarchy in part 1)

c. Edge of centre locations, and

d. Only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 9

When considering new proposals in out of centre locations, preference will be given to accessible sites that

are well connected to a defined centre in accordance with part 1 of the policy. For retail uses, if there are

no accessible out of centre sites that are well connected to a defined centre, preference will be given to the

existing retail parks (as shown on the Policies Map).’

2.12 It is therefore evident from the above that the Council’s sequential test differentiates between the

primary shopping area and the rest of the town centre, and identifies a preference for development to

be located at out of centre retail parks over other out of centre sites (where both fail to connect well

to an identified centre).

2.13 In respect of the matter of impact, Policy ED2 indicates that a threshold of 500 sq.m applies in this

instance and the proposal should therefore demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the

impact test.

2.14 In this regard, Policy ED2 indicates that retail proposals should demonstrate that:

they would not have a significant adverse impact on the delivery of existing, committed

and planned public and private investment within any identified centre; and

no significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of any existing centre will arise

from the proposed development, including to local consumer choice and trade in defined

centres and wider area, for up to five years from the time the application is made. For

major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should

also be assessed up to ten years from the date of submission.

2.15 The above development plan impact test is considered to be broadly similar to that set out at

paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

2.16 In addition to the above, we note that Policy SD2 sets out principles for sustainable development in

Sefton Borough and identifies a requirement to ‘…help Sefton’s town and local centres to diversify and

thrive…’. Whilst the policy indicates that development proposals will be assessed taking into account

this principle, there is no further direct retail test linked to Policy SD2.

Overview in Respect of Relevant Retail and Town Centre Planning Policy

2.17 Paragraph 213 of Annex 1 of the revised NPPF indicates that due weight should be given to relevant

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 10

policies in existing plans according to their consistency with the NPPF (the more similar the policies,

the greater the weight that may be given).

2.18 In this instance, the development plan sequential test differentiates between retail parks and other out

of centre site (when no accessible out of centre sites can be found) and between the primary shopping

area and wider town centre, in a manner that departs somewhat from national planning policy. We

consider both the sequential test as articulated in both national and local planning policy below, before

then returning to the matter of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant retail policies of the

development plan in the concluding Section 5 of our report.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 11

3.0 The Sequential Test

Requirements of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance

3.1 Paragraph 86 of the NPPF sets out the order of preference in applying the sequential approach. The

first preference is for main town centre use development to locate in town centres, followed then by

edge of centre locations, and only if no other suitable sites are available should out of centre sites be

considered. Paragraph 87 indicates that, when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals,

preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants

and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

3.2 Additional guidance on the application of the sequential approach is provided by the Town Centres

and Retail Planning Practice Guidance (‘the Town Centres PPG’), which was updated on 18 September

2020.

3.3 Paragraph 011 of the Town Centres PPG provides a ‘checklist’ for the application of the sequential test

in decision taking. It indicates the following considerations:

With due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central

sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in

an edge of centre or out of centre location, preference should be given to accessible sites that are

well connected to the town centre. Any associated reasoning should be set out clearly.

Is there scope for flexibility in the format and/or scale of the proposal? It is not necessary to

demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the

scale and form of development being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more

central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal.

If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed.

3.4 In this instance, the application site is out of centre. As such, there is a need to consider in and edge

of centre sites, and the potential offered by well-connected out of centre sites, as part of the NPPF test.

As set out above, the Local Plan sequential test also identifies retail park locations as being preferable

to other sites that are not well connected to a town centre.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 12

3.5 In reviewing sequential alternative sites, it is first necessary to review parameters of relevance to the

application of the test. As such, we first consider the matters of ‘disaggregation’, flexibility, and the

scale of site required, before then considering the area of search for sequential alternative sites.

Disaggregation, Flexibility and Scale

3.6 The submitted Planning and Retail Statement indicates that the sequential test should be approached

on the basis that any alternative site should be able to accommodate all elements of the proposed

development. Paragraph 7.19 of the Planning and Retail Statement indicates that:

‘…it is clear that under the NPPF there is no requirement to consider ‘disaggregation’ nor to explore

changes that would materially alter the application proposal such that it no longer met commercial

requirements (i.e. a material reduction in size).’

3.7 In considering the above position, we accept that the NPPF is silent on the matter of ‘disaggregation’

and, as such, it helpful to consider how the Secretary of State has considered the issue in determining

‘called in’ applications.

3.8 In this regard, we note that:

Disaggregation was considered by the Inspector in his report commending the grant of planning

permission for proposed retail development at Rushden Lakes (PINS reference

APP/G2815/V/12/2190175) to the Secretary of State. With specific regard to disaggregation,

paragraph 8.47 of the Inspector’s report states that:

‘There is no longer any such requirement stated in the NPPF... Had the Government intended to retain

disaggregation as a requirement it would and should have explicitly stated this in the NPPF. If it had

been intended to carry on with the requirement then all that would have been required is the addition

of the word “disaggregation” at the end of NPPF [24].’

There has been discussion in some quarters as to whether this conclusion is specific to Rushden

Lakes or whether it can be applied more generally, and the subsequent Braintree Secretary of State

decision (PINS reference APP/Z1510/A/14/2219101) provides clarification on the matter.

The Inspector at paragraph 449 of the Braintree decision reports that the view of the Secretary of

State at Rushden Lakes:

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 13

‘...was not qualified in any way other than by reference to the two report paragraphs from which it

derived. While one of these paragraphs dealt with specific aspects of the proposal, the other dealt

with the intention of national policy in paragraph 24 of the Framework following the demise of PPS4.

And that paragraph was not specific to the site or to the proposal in any way.’

Paragraph 450 goes on to state that:

‘If the Secretary of State had wanted to qualify his statement on disaggregation in any way, that could

have been achieved very simply by the addition of words such as ‘in this case’. Indeed, the variety of

uses in the RL [Rushden Lakes] proposal and the fact that the proposal included retail units, rather

than one large retail unit, would have afforded more rather than less opportunity for some

disaggregation if that had been an aim.’ (Our emphasis.)

The Secretary of State confirms at paragraph 9 of the Braintree decision letter that ‘...he agrees

with the Inspector’s assessment regarding the sequential test at paragraph 24 of the Framework

(IR443-467).’

3.9 Given the above, we do not believe that there is any general default requirement which means that an

applicant is always obliged to disaggregate elements of its proposal in order that it can fit on alternative

sites.

3.10 However, in this instance, the planning application is in two parts, with the two drive thru units being

the subject of an outline application. There does not appear to be any certainty that this second phase

will be delivered in association with the proposed foodstore. Indeed, the applicant does not actually

suggest that this second phase is a critical component that helps underpin the viability of the proposed

development. Instead, page 4 of the submitted Design & Access Statement indicates that the applicant

has only ‘started to test the market in terms of potential end users’.

3.11 Given the above, we believe that a further Secretary of State decision is of relevance.

3.12 The Inspector’s report in respect of the recovered appeal for a proposal to provide large-scale main

town centre uses at Tollgate in Stanway, Essex (PINS reference APP/A1530/W/16/3147039) suggests

that, in particular circumstances, there may be a need to consider the matter of disaggregation as part

of the sequential test.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 14

3.13 Paragraph 12.3.11 of the Tollgate Inspector’s report indicates that:

‘In this case there is no evidence that the proposed format is necessary or fundamental to the proposal.

Whilst the proposal is in outline, not a single retailer has been identified, and the size and location of units

within the site has not been established and there is no defined timescale or phasing. It is difficult to

conceive of a more open ended proposal. The parameters established by plans show a greater level of

gross floor space than permission has been sought for. Most importantly the Appellants have themselves

disaggregated within the appeal site with three distinct zones. DZ1 and DZ3 are some distance apart. In

these circumstances disaggregation within the sequential test would be justified.’ (Our emphasis.)

3.14 In respect of the current proposal, we note that:

the drive thru uses are in outline;

no compelling evidence has been provided which demonstrates that the successful

implementation of the foodstore is dependent on the delivery of the second phase;

the foodstore would be on a separate site and would not share car parking and servicing; and

no specific drive thru operators are associated with the scheme.

3.15 As a consequence of the above, we do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated that the two

separate parts of the proposal need to be (and would be) delivered in conjunction with one another.

As such, we approach the sequential test on the basis that consideration should be given as to whether

sites are available to accommodate the foodstore and drive thru elements of the proposal separately.

3.16 In terms of the need to demonstrate appropriate flexibility in respect of the scale of development, we

note that the paragraph 7.4 of the applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement indicates that the

proposed foodstore element occupies around 1.15 hectares of the site, and that the drive thru units

occupy around 0.35 hectares. However, we note that discount foodstore operators generally require

around 0.6 hectares to accommodate a standard format store, and can – subject to operating

conditions – sometimes bring forward stores on smaller sites. As such, we consider all relevant sites

above 0.5 hectares in size when considering the foodstore element of the proposal. We accept that

the drive thru proposal comprises a relatively efficient use of land and do not believe that a similar

proposal could be brought forward on a site much smaller than 0.3 hectares.

Area of Search and Other Parameters

3.17 The applicant suggests that the proposal will primarily serve residents living within a five minute

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 15

drivetime of the application site and provides an area of search at Appendix III of its Planning and Retail

Statement based on such a catchment area. The area from which a store will be able to draw trade is

influenced not just by the distance that a shopper would have to drive but also by the location of

existing competition in the wider area.

3.18 In considering the catchment, we note that Maghull is a relatively self-contained settlement and that

residential areas to the north are some distance beyond it. To the east and south, there is relatively

strong competing provision, with discount foodstores being located in Thornton, Netherton and

Fazakerley. Accordingly, it is accepted that the majority of custom attracted to the foodstore would

likely originate within the catchment identified by the applicant (as other locations are generally more

conveniently served).

3.19 Similarly, it is accepted that the drive thru units will likely serve not just Maghull residents, but also

those passing along the A59 and visitors to the proposed Aldi and existing Lidl foodstores. We also

utilise the five minute drivetime provided by the applicant as the starting point on considering potential

sites for the drive thru uses, accepting that some parts of this area may not be able to appropriately

serve the same needs in practice. On this basis, we agree with the applicant that the centres of Maghull,

Netherton and Old Roan are of principal relevance to the sequential test. In addition, there is a need

to consider the potential offered by sites at Aintree Retail Park given that Local Plan Policy ED2

effectively identifies as this being sequentially preferable to the application site.

3.20 Notwithstanding the above, we note the location of the application site, which lies adjacent to the A59

and accept that the accessibility and visibility of alternative sites may impact on their suitability to serve

a broadly similar market need.

3.21 We consider sequential alternative sites in this context below.

Consideration of Sequential Alternative Sites

3.22 We review the potential of sites within and well-connected to the eight centres below. We consider

the potential of each centre in the same order as the submitted Retail Statement.

Maghull

3.23 Maghull district centre is focused around the junction of the A59 Northway and Westway. It is located

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 16

to the north-east of the application site, within Sefton Borough. Maghull is a generally compact centre,

with the majority of retail units (including Home Bargains) forming the purpose-built Central Square

precinct. A Morrisons foodstore is located to the south.

3.24 We are unaware of any substantial sites located within or proximate to Maghull district centre which

offer genuine potential to accommodate a foodstore.

3.25 The largest available units within the centre at the time of reporting are Units 10 and 23 at Central

Square. We note that marketing particulars2 for Unit 10 indicate that it provides a total of 666 sq.m, of

which 463 sq.m is at ground floor level. The marketing particulars for Unit 23 identify that it provides

a total floor area of 270 sq.m, of which 189 sq.m is at ground floor level.

3.26 Unit 10 is substantially greater in scale than both proposed drive thru units. Unit 23 is a broadly

comparable size as the proposed drive thru coffee shop and therefore offers (at least theoretically)

potential to accommodate this part of the development.

3.27 However, in considering Maghull district centre as a destination, it is important to recognise that units

in and around Central Square, and elsewhere in the centre:

are located around 1.5 kilometres from the application site;

are not generally located immediately adjacent to the A59; and

are generally unable to benefit from the ‘drive thru’ element of the proposed Class A3/A5 elements

of the proposal.

3.28 Given the above, we do not believe that the available units in and around Maghull district centre could

be able to meet the same needs as proposed to be served by the application proposal. The drive thru

units would largely meet the requirements of car borne traffic travelling along the A59, residents

prepared to walk to the application site to secure sustenance, and visitors to the proposed Aldi and the

existing Lidl store. Maghull district centre is not as well located to cater for these markets and, as such,

we find that neither Unit 23 nor any other unit is suitable to accommodate the food and drink uses.

Old Roan

3.29 Old Roan local centre sits at the junction of Aintree Lane and Altway, just off the A59 and within the

2 Prepared by Mason Partners and dated October 2020

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 17

Sefton administrative area. It takes the form of a traditional centre which accommodates generally

small retail units. We are unaware of any land or premises located within or proximate to Old Roan

which offers any potential to accommodate any part of the proposal.

Netherton

3.30 Netherton local centre sits on Glovers Lane, to the west of the Aintree area. Whilst it accommodates a

health centre, community centre and children’s centre, Netherton’s retail offer is relatively limited and

is focused around the Marian Square Shopping Centre.

3.31 Whilst Avison Young’s catchment area indicates that Netherton is just within the five minute off peak

drivetime isochrone, we considered the relationship between its centre and the application site as part

of a site visit on 15 November 2020. In our view, the distance between the settlements of Netherton

and Maghull (and the nature of the road links between the two) is such that sites in Netherton are

unlikely to appropriately meet the same needs catered for in Maghull (and vice versa). In practice, few

visitors to foodstores, coffee shops and restaurants in Maghull would look instead to Netherton to

meet those needs as this would mean foregoing existing destinations that are more conveniently

located (including the Lidl foodstore on the eastern side of Northway). As such, we do not believe that

there any sites in Netherton that are suitable to accommodate any part of the application proposal.

Aintree Retail Park

3.32 Aintree Retail Park is located within the applicant’s five minute drivetime catchment and is in a

sequentially superior to the application site in respect of the requirements of Local Plan Policy ED2.

However, we note that the retail park is geographically separate from the settlement of Maghull, and

that traffic around Switch Island and Aintree Retail Park would also likely dissuade Maghull residents

from travelling to this area to undertake grocery shopping.

3.33 Page 3 of Avison Young’s letter of 13 November 2020 states that the applicant’s objective is:

‘…to serve the settlement of Maghull – which itself comprises some 26,500 residents and, as our July and

November RIAs have emphasised, contains two ‘main’ food shopping destinations (Morrisons and Lidl)

which are ‘overtrading’ considerably.’

3.34 We accept that a primary purpose of the foodstore element of the proposal is to compete with the Lidl

and Morrisons foodstores and provide additional competition to cater for residents of Maghull. Food

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 18

and drink operators at Aintree Retail Park principally meet the needs of visitors to the retail park (and

those travelling along this part of the A59), and the proposed drive thru units would not cater for the

same clientele in the same manner.

3.35 Given the above, it is accepted that Aintree retail Park does not comprise a suitable location to

accommodate any part of the application proposal.

Conclusion in Respect of the NPPF Sequential Test

3.36 We have reviewed all of the sites and locations considered by the applicant in its submission and do

not believe that any one is both available and suitable to accommodate the application proposal. We

are unaware of any other site which is ‘in centre’, ‘edge of centre’, or better connected to a centre, that

could support the application proposal in practice.

3.37 Given the above, we find that the application proposal conforms to the requirements of the sequential

test as articulated by Local Plan Policy ED2 and by paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 19

4.0 The Impact Test

Requirements of the NPPF and the Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres PPG

4.1 Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF indicate that application proposals for retail and leisure development

should be refused planning permission where a significant adverse impact is likely to arise from

development.

4.2 In assessing the significance of impacts arising from development, it is necessary to reflect upon the

advice set out in the Town Centres PPG. In this regard, paragraph 017 states that:

‘A judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in light of local

circumstances. For example in areas where there are high levels of vacancy and limited retailer demand,

even very modest trade diversion from a new development may lead to a significant adverse impact.’ (Our

emphasis.)

4.3 It should also be recognised that impacts will arise with all retail developments, but that these will not

always be unacceptable, not least because development often enhances choice, competition and

innovation. It is therefore necessary to differentiate between those developments that will have an

impact and those that will undermine the future vitality and viability of established centres, i.e. have a

‘significant adverse’ impact.

4.4 Paragraph 016 of the Town Centres PPG is also of some relevance in considering how the impact test

should be applied. It states that:

‘As a guiding principle impact should be assessed on a like-for-like basis in respect of that particular sector

(e.g. it may not be appropriate to compare the impact of an out of centre DIY store with small scale town-

centre stores as they would normally not compete directly). Retail uses tend to compete with their most

comparable competitive facilities.’

4.5 In this case, we anticipate that the foodstore will trade most directly against the Lidl at Northway, the

Asda at Ormskirk Road, and the Morrisons at Stafford Moreton Way in Maghull district centre. The

drive thru units will trade in part against comparable facilities elsewhere in Maghull, but also against

other roadside facilities adjacent to other arterial roads across a wider area.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 20

4.6 The two key impact tests identified by paragraph 89 of the revised NPPF are considered below. The

tests relate to:

the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private sector

investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice

and trade in the town centre and wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of

the scheme).

4.7 The compliance of the proposal with each of the two strands of the test is set out below.

The Impact of the Proposal on Existing, Committed and Planned Public and Private Sector

Investment in a Centre or Centres in the Catchment Area of the Proposal

4.8 Paragraph 8.95 of the applicant’s Planning and Retail Statement states that:

‘…there can be no suggestion that the provision of a discount foodstore on land at Northway might in any

way impact upon ‘existing, committed or planned’ investment in the district centre. This is because there

simply are no such schemes in the pipeline to impact upon…’

4.9 The above statement fails to reflect the fact that the Central Square scheme is the subject of investment,

which has taken the form of extensions to existing units and ongoing improvements to the public realm

and car parking area3. It is accepted that this investment is not of a directly comparable nature to that

proposed by the subject planning application and that it should not be prejudiced by the

implementation of the proposed foodstore and drive thru units. We do not believe that any

representations have been made by any interested party which provides a contrary view.

4.10 We are unaware of any other investment of relevance to the first part of the NPPF paragraph 89 impact

test. Accordingly, we conclude that proposal conforms to the requirements of the first strand of the

national impact test.

The Impact of the Proposal on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, Including Local Consumer

Choice and Trade in the Town Centre and Wider Area

4.11 The applicant sets out its approach to trade diversion impact at Section 8 of its Planning and Retail

3 Pursuant to planning permissions reference DC/2016/00268 and DC/2019/01840

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 21

Statement, albeit this has been superseded in part by Avison Young’s letter of 9 November 2020.

4.12 We set out below our appraisal of the principal inputs and assumptions relied upon by the applicant in

assessing the impact of the convenience goods floorspace below, before then turning our attention to

the drive thru units. At the outset, it is accepted that the comparison goods floorspace associated with

the Aldi is limited and that this floorspace will trade against a number of competing destinations

(including other foodstores). We accept that there would be no significant impacts arising from this

element of the proposal, subject to the other parts of the proposed development being acceptable.

Assessment Period

4.13 The applicant undertakes its impact assessment based on a test year of 2024. In this regard, we note

that paragraph 017 of the Town Centres PPG directs that the design year for impact testing should be

the year that the proposal has achieved a ‘mature’ trading pattern. It states that this is conventionally

taken to be the second full calendar year of trading after the opening of a new retail development. We

consider that a development of this nature could commence in 2021 or 2022 and, on this basis, 2023

or 2024 could well equate to the second full calendar year of trading. The adopted test year is therefore

appropriate.

Baseline Position

4.14 The 9 November letter provides (at Appendix I) a revised assessment of convenience goods trade

diversion which is derived from a new household survey. The survey has been undertaken by NEMS

Market Research under the direction of Nexus Planning in order to inform a new Sefton Retail Strategy

Review. Avison Young assumes that the zones of principal relevance to the impacts arising from the

application proposal are Zones M and B of the forthcoming Retail Strategy Review, which we agree

with.

4.15 Avison Young has then applied Experian expenditure and population data, and future growth

projections at set out in Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 18, in order to estimate the turnover of

key foodstores and convenience goods shopping destinations at 2024. Whilst Avison Young’s

methodology differs from that which will be employed by Nexus Planning in undertaking the Sefton

Retail Strategy Review4, we confirm that its assumed turnover for key convenience goods destinations

4 Including differences relating to the adopted base year and the proportion of assumed convenience goods expenditure which is dedicated to ‘main food’ and ‘top up food’ shopping

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 22

in and around Maghull is broadly similar to our own.

4.16 Given the above, we accept that the applicant’s approach in estimating the baseline position allows for

an appropriate assessment of the convenience goods impacts arising from the proposal.

Turnover of the Application Proposal

4.17 The applicant’s assessment of the turnover of the application proposal is set out at Table 1 of Appendix

I of the 9 November letter.

4.18 Based on a proposed convenience goods floorspace of 1,066 sq.m and an identified sales density of

£11,946 per sq.m, the applicant estimates that (after accounting for changes in sales efficiency over

time) the floorspace would have a convenience goods turnover of around £12.83m at 2025 (in 2018

prices). The sales density applied is considered broadly consistent with our understanding of Aldi’s

company performance in respect of convenience goods floorspace, and the estimated turnover of the

floorspace is considered to be appropriate.

Patterns of Convenience Goods Trade Diversion

4.19 At the outset, we recognise that the foodstore will primarily cater for residents of Maghull (albeit it will

also draw some trade from elsewhere). Accepting the well-established principle that like competes

with like, we envisage that the greatest impacts will occur at the existing Lidl and Morrisons stores in

Maghull and the Asda at Ormskirk Road, and that lesser impacts will arise at smaller local convenience

shops and more distant supermarkets.

4.20 In our view, the application proposal would trade very strongly against the out of centre Lidl on the

other side of Northway and believe that a reasonably significant proportion of the shoppers visiting

this store may prefer to shop at a new Aldi instead. Accordingly, we believe that the trade diversion

the applicant assumes will occur from this store (equating to £1.36m at 20245) could be significantly

higher in practice. In reality, we think less trade than the applicant provides for may be diverted from

destinations further afield such as Netherton and Fazakerley.

4.21 We are wholly satisfied that the convenience goods impacts arising at centres outside of Maghull will

be very limited, and that the relevant consideration is the impact of the proposal on Maghull district

5 As set out by Table 6 of Appendix I of the 6 November 2020 letter

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 23

centre.

4.22 In this regard, it is accepted that the proposed convenience goods floorspace will trade most directly

against the Morrisons store at Stafford Moreton Way. We believe that the impact which the applicant

forecasts will occur at the Morrisons – equating to 10.5% of the convenience goods turnover of Aldi

(i.e. £2.52m) – is credible. The evidence provided by the applicant confirms that the Morrisons trades

strongly at present, and we believe it to be clear that it would continue to do so subsequent to the

application proposal being implemented. Impacts at other stores – including Heron Foods and Home

Bargains – would be relatively modest due to the difference in trading models, role and function.

4.23 Given the above, we do not believe that there is a genuine prospect that any existing retailers in

Maghull would cease to trade as a consequence of the application proposal, nor do we believe that the

offer of the centre would likely be diminished in any material way.

4.24 We note that the applicant has failed to consider the cumulative impacts which may arise as a

consequence of the Council granting planning permission for the extension of the existing Marks &

Spencer (with a substantially larger foodhall) at Aintree Retail Park. Nexus Planning provided advice

on this application to the Council in October 2020. Our advice assumed, as a worst case scenario, that

no more than £0.8m would be diverted from the Morrisons at Maghull to the proposed additional

Marks & Spencer convenience goods floorspace at 2025.

4.25 Accordingly, we can confirm that, should both the Marks & Spencer and Aldi schemes come forward,

Morrisons would lose only a limited proportion of its turnover and should continue to perform strongly.

Other stores within Maghull would not be materially affected by the Marks & Spencer extension.

Impacts Arising from Class A3/A5 Drive Thru Units

4.26 The drive thru units will trade in part against comparable facilities elsewhere in Maghull, but also against

other roadside facilities adjacent to the wider highway network. As the applicant identifies, the site

already accommodates the Tinto Coffee House and some of the custom attracted to the two new units

will be displaced from this existing business. Comparable food and drink operations in Maghull

(including the Costa at 32 Westway) primarily cater for those already in the local area, i.e. visitors to

Maghull district centre and those employed by local businesses. Accordingly, whilst some food and

drink trade will migrate to the application proposal from Maghull district centre (partly as a

consequence of the limited loss of customers from Morrisons), we believe that this would be limited in

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 24

practice.

Overall Trade Diversion Impact

4.27 Based on the above, we find that:

the proposed foodstore would trade substantially against the existing Lidl at Northway, and trade

diversion from any defined centre would be limited in practice;

the Morrisons at Maghull district centre performs strongly and would continue to trade very well

subsequent to the implementation of the application proposal;

no other retailers within Maghull district centre (or any other centre) would be the subject of an

unacceptable trade diversion impact; and

the market served by the proposed Class A3/A5 units would differ materially from that served

from Maghull district centre (and from any other centre), such that the impact arising from this

element of the development is limited.

4.28 The level of trade diversion from Maghull – even when considered alongside the proposed extension

to Marks & Spencer at Aintree – is relatively limited in the context of a Morrisons store that performs

well. There would still be a need to travel into Maghull to purchase many day-to-day items (given that

Morrisons, Home Bargains and other operators in Maghull offer many goods and services which Aldi

does not), and we do not envisage that there would be any substantial loss of linked trips as a

consequence of the proposal.

4.29 We recognise that a number of Sefton’s centres are relatively fragile (including Bootle town centre) and

we are generally concerned about the ongoing impact of Covid-19 in respect of centres’ vitality and

viability. However, centres such as Maghull are generally more resilient to such pressures, given that

they are focused around convenience shopping and other local needs. Whilst some vacant units are

currently available in Maghull, the centre generally has a well-defined role meeting convenience needs

and some day-today comparison and service needs. We do not envisage that Maghull is likely to suffer

substantially over the long term as a consequence of Covid-19 and some of its operators may actually

benefit should the trend to work from home continue to any degree.

4.30 As a consequence of the above, we are satisfied that in-centre impacts arising from the proposal are

limited and not of a magnitude that could reasonably be deemed ‘significant adverse’.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 25

Conclusion in Respect of Impact

4.31 As we set out above, the only relevant in-centre planned investment we are aware of within the

application proposal’s defined catchment is at Central Square in Maghull, which is the subject of

extensions to existing units and car park improvements. We are satisfied that this investment is

substantially progressed and is not directly comparable to the type of investment proposed at the

application site. As such, we do not believe that the application proposal would have any material

impact on this investment being successfully realised.

4.32 We believe that much of the convenience goods trade diversion impact arising from the proposal will

occur at out of centre locations, including the Lidl at Northway and the Asda at Ormskirk Road. We

have examined the applicant’s retail impact assessment in detail, and do not believe that any centre

would be the subject of an unacceptable impact. We have considered the likely level of trade diversion

arising at the Morrisons supermarket at Maghull district centre and believe it to be clear that the store

would continue to trade successfully subsequent to the implementation of the application proposal

(even after account is taken of the proposal to extend the Marks & Spencer at Aintree). The level of

comparison goods diversion would be dispersed over a number of venues and any impacts at defined

centres would be modest. Furthermore, we do not believe that there would be any substantial level of

linked trips as a consequence of the proposal.

4.33 Given the above, we conclude that the application proposal accords with the requirements of both

strands of the NPPF impact test and Local Plan Policy ED2 insofar as it relates to impact.

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 26

5.0 Summary and Recommendations

5.1 Planning application reference DC/2020/01437 seeks to provide a foodstore together with Class A3/A5

drive thru units at a site adjacent to Northway in Maghull. The foodstore element of the proposal is

the subject of a detailed application, and the drive thru units are in outline.

5.2 The application site lies over 1.5 kilometres from both Maghull district centre and Old Roan local centre,

and is clearly ‘out of centre’ for the purpose of retail planning policy.

5.3 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF indicates that planning applications for retail uses that are not in an existing

centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning

permission where they fail to satisfy the requirements of the sequential approach or are likely to result

in a significant adverse impact.

5.4 In respect of the sequential approach to development (which we approach on the basis of whether

sites could accommodate the overall operation created by the application proposal), we have reviewed

all the sites identified by the applicant and do not believe that any are both available and suitable to

accommodate the principal parts of the application proposal, even allowing for appropriate flexibility.

We are unaware of any other sequential sites offering realistic potential to accommodate the proposal

and, as such, find that it accords with the requirements of paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF.

5.5 With regard to the first part of the NPPF impact test, we do not believe that the grant of planning

permission for the proposed foodstore would lead to a significant adverse impact in respect of existing,

committed and planned public and private sector investment. Whilst proposals are being progressed

in Maghull district centre, this is of a different nature and is substantially progressed.

5.6 In terms of the second part of the test (relating to the vitality and viability of town centres), our review

of the submitted retail impact assessment has confirmed that a large proportion of the impact arising

from the proposal would occur at out of centre stores (including the Lidl at Northway and the Asda at

Ormskirk Road). In terms of defined centres, the greatest impact would occur at Maghull. In this

regard, we are confident that the Morrisons would continue to trade well subsequent to the proposal’s

implementation (even when the impacts arising from the proposed extension of the Marks & Spencer

at Aintree are accounted for). Impacts more generally across Maghull district centre as a consequence

Land at Northway, Maghull Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sefton Council 27

of both the proposed foodstore and the drive thru units would be limited. The proposal therefore

accords with the NPPF impact test.

5.7 Local Plan Policy ED2 sets out an impact test that is generally consistent with the NPPF and a sequential

test that provides some deviation from national planning policy in terms of how it prioritises sites.

Notwithstanding this difference in policy approach, we also find that the proposal conforms to the

requirements of Policy ED2.

5.8 Local Plan Policy SD2 identifies that development should help support Sefton’s town and local centres

to diversify and thrive. However, there is no policy mechanism to indicate how this would be achieved

or how the policy would be breached (other than that set out at Policy ED2) and we do not believe that

any perceived conflict with the general thrust of this policy could likely support the refusal of planning

permission.

5.9 It is clearly necessary for the Council to consider all relevant planning policy and material considerations

in reaching a decision to grant planning permission. Notwithstanding this, we conclude that the refusal

of planning permission for this application proposal would not be supported on retail and town centre

planning policy grounds, subject to the proposal trading in the manner suggested by the applicant

(which should be secured by appropriate conditions).

5.10 We trust that the above appropriately sets out our view in respect of the application, but we would be

happy to provide further assistance (including in respect of conditions) should it be required.

Nexus Planning Manchester Eastgate 2 Castle Street Castlefield Manchester M3 4LZ

T: 0161 819 6570 nexusplanning.co.uk