48 apartments at Land At Back Belmont Road, Liverpool

What was proposed

The application proposed three apartment blocks, comprising one four-storey and two three-storey buildings with 48 apartments, parking, access and landscaping.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 3 no. blocks of residential development of two three storey blocks and one four storey block comprising 48 apartments (Use Class C3).”

“The development comprises of a mix of units of accommodation. The proposed dwellings comprise 9no. 1-bed apartments and 37no. 2-bed apartments as well as 2no. 3-bed apartments. As such, the proposal comprises 18.3% 1-bed dwellings and 81.7% 2-bed and 3-bed dwellings.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The vacant brownfield site included unused hardstanding and former commercial buildings, and lay between mixed uses, housing and a park.

“The application site comprises a vacant brownfield parcel of land measuring approximately 4,759 sqm. It is located between the mixed uses fronting Belmont Road and the neighbouring park, at the junction of Back Belmont Road and Whitefield Road. The site extends between Back Belmont Road and Belmont Road, where they former commercial buildings earmarked for demolition to make way for the proposed development.”

“Historically, the site and the adjacent park formed part of a layout of parallel streets comprising terraced housing, which are understood to have been demolished during the 1960s. Subsequent redevelopment of parts of the area saw the introduction of commercial units during the 1970s and 1980s. The site is presently without any built development and vegetation, resulting in a noticeable gap in the urban fabric.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications elsewhere included an approved sheltered tyre store, a withdrawn mixed commercial and residential building, and two approved schemes.

“Elsewhere 25F/0084 To erect sheltered tyre store area with new access and enclosure. Approved 19/03/2025”

“23O/1084 To erect a 4-storey building with a ground floor commercial unit and create 3 x 1 no. bedroomed apartments and 3 x 2 no. bedroomed apartments at upper floor level Withdrawn…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal sustainable because it reused vacant land, delivered housing including affordable homes, and had acceptable design, amenity, transport and drainage impacts.

“The principle of residential development is considered acceptable. The site lies within a mixed-use area where residential development is supported in principle under Policy EC6, subject to compatibility with surrounding uses and the protection of existing businesses. Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of vacant commercial buildings, the site is not designated as safeguarded employment land and no active businesses would be displaced.”

“Overall, the proposal represents a sustainable form of development that would regenerate a vacant brownfield site, deliver new market and affordable housing, improve the appearance of the area and contribute positively to Liverpool’s housing supply objectives.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

A nearby business objected on land use, noise, highway safety, residential amenity and deliverability grounds, while consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“One objection received from the nearby business occupier who raised the following issues:”

“Noise and Agent of Change • The submitted Noise Impact Assessment is considered not fit for purpose, as noise monitoring was undertaken only from 4pm onwards and does not cover BIKA’s main operational hours (8am–4pm). • The assessment fails to properly consider noise from BIKA’s deliveries, servicing activities, or nearby commercial uses (including a MOT garage).”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The applicant’s agent spoke in support, and the planning case officer summarised the application and recommended approval.

The vote

Members voted nine for the motion, none against and none abstaining, and the motion was carried.

“The Motion was carried and it was resolved accordingly.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the proposed conditions, a legal agreement securing affordable homes and financial contributions, and delegated authority if the agreement was not signed.

“(iv) The payment of a contribution of £4,572 (15% of the value of the planning application fee) to cover the costs of administering the legal agreement, upon signing of the legal agreement.”

“(d) In the event that the Legal Agreement required under (b) is not signed By 28 th January 2027 the Director of Planning and Building Control be given additional delegated authority for the discretion to refuse the application for the reason that: ‘The applicant has not entered into a legal agreement to pay a commuted sum in lieu of the provision/enhancement of street trees, open space and affordable housing, contrary to Policies TP1, TP5, TP6, H14, STP2, STP3, STP5, GI8…”

Minutes