# Former Newsham Park pub, 108 Boaler Street, Liverpool - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008083 - **Application reference:** 25F/0345 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of ground floor of former public house (sui generis) to convenience store (Class E) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), TC3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) SP5, SP6 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, sequential test - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-marketing-12-months, sequential-test, flexibility-format-scale, community-facility, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a long-closed pub in a Liverpool residential area to a convenience store. The appeal was dismissed on two grounds. First, the loss of the community facility was not justified: the inspector used HC6's 12-month marketing benchmark to interpret local policy SP5, and three months of informal marketing fell well short. Second, the sequential test failed because a local-centre unit only 6 m² smaller was dismissed without evidence, contrary to the flexibility TC3(3) requires. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a relevant material planning consideration of 'critical importance' … In respect of the main issues in this appeal, the Framework has not materially changed the assessment, and it has therefore not been necessary for me to consult the main parties upon it" (DL ¶2). - **Community facility: FAIL (SP5, read with HC6).** "Whilst neither Policy SP5 nor its supporting text prescribes a specific marketing approach, Policy HC6 of the Framework provides relevant national policy guidance … reasonable steps have been taken to market the property for its existing use, without success, for a period of at least 12 months" (DL ¶7). "it was undertaken for only three months, which falls significantly short of the 12-month period referred to in the Framework" (DL ¶8). This was so even though "the loss of the appeal property's use as a public house would not leave the local community without such a facility" (DL ¶6). Local SP5 also requires that no alternative community use is needed. - **Sequential test: FAIL (TC3(3)).** "I cannot conclude that the appellant has applied the degree of flexibility in the consideration of issues such as format and scale that is required by Policy TC3.3 of the Framework" (DL ¶16). - **Benefits.** Jobs, bringing an under-used building back into use, and investment "weigh in favour … Nevertheless, they are not sufficient" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance A section 38(6) plan-led conclusion: conflict with the plan as a whole, and no material considerations outweighing it (DL ¶20). No S4 balance was run expressly, even though the site is within a settlement. ## What made the difference The marketing evidence. HC6's 12-month benchmark gave the inspector an objective yardstick that the local policy lacked. The existence of other pubs nearby (an HC6(1)(c)-type argument) did not help, because the local policy protects against loss of any community use, not just pubs. With 12 months of documented marketing, and evidence of why a 66 m² unit could not work, the appeal could have been allowed. Compare St Neots (PINS-6009938): 15 months of specialist marketing, allowed. ## Transferable points - Where a local community-facility policy is silent on marketing, HC6(1)(a)'s "at least 12 months" is the national benchmark (DL ¶7-8). - Nearby alternative pubs do not rescue a proposal where the local policy also requires no need for any alternative community use (DL ¶6, 11). - Under TC3(3), rejecting a town-centre unit that is marginally smaller, without operational evidence, is a failure of flexibility (DL ¶14-16). - Inspectors may apply the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties where it "has not materially changed the assessment" (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(a): fail.** HC6's 12-month marketing benchmark used to read local policy SP5; three months of unverified circulation to agents "falls significantly short" (DL 7-9) - **SP5 (Liverpool LP): conflict.** pub closed for years, not an ACV, no objections, other pubs nearby, but not shown surplus for any community use; building usable as-is (DL 6-12) - **TC3(3): fail.** sequential test discounted a 66 m2 local-centre unit only 6 m2 smaller than needed, with no operational evidence; insufficient flexibility on format and scale (DL 13-17) - **TC3: conflict.** local SP6 sequential approach held consistent with TC3 (DL 13, 17) - **E2: benefit.** jobs, reuse of an under-used building, investment weigh in favour but are "not sufficient" (DL 18) ## Key facts - Pub closed for several years, in a Primarily Residential Area, not an Asset of Community Value, no local objection - Another pub on Boaler Street and others within easy walking distance - Marketing was circulation to local agents for 3 months only, with no agent confirmation of outcome - Sequential test covered Kensington Local Centre; one available unit of 66 m2 rejected as 6 m2 too small - Parties not re-consulted; the Framework "has not materially changed the assessment" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008083 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/963c479b-f691-46eb-a376-1c1752bdc8a7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008083.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.