The Highways and Public Spaces Representations Committee were scheduled to meet to discuss a city-wide smoke control order, and objections to a proposed traffic regulation order. The committee was expected to consider the responses received during the consultation period for the traffic regulation order, and determine whether to proceed with the order. They were also expected to approve the making of the smoke control order.

City-Wide Smoke Control Order

The committee was scheduled to discuss a city-wide smoke control order (SCO) for Liverpool. The report pack included a report that stated that the committee was asked to approve the making of an order to:

revoke all smoke control orders (SCOs) made by the council on or after 12th November 1980 and to declare the whole of the city a smoke control area (SCA ).

The report stated that a previous proposal to make and advertise a new order revoking all such orders made before 12th November 1980 had been approved by the cabinet on 19 March 2024, and submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

According to the report, the effect of the new citywide designation as a SCO would be that it is unlawful to:

• allow smoke emissions from a chimney of any building;
• obtain and use solid fuel, other than authorised fuel;
• sell solid fuel to be taken away by the purchaser and failing to take reasonable steps to notify the potential purchaser that it is an offence to acquire the fuel to be used in a prohibited manner; and
• sell by delivering solid fuel, other than authorised fuel, to premise located within the smoke control area.

The report stated that breach of an SCO is punishable by a financial penalty of between £175 and £300 for emission of smoke, or prosecution for acquiring, obtaining or selling unauthorised fuel.

The report noted that some burning activities are exempt from restrictions applied within a SCO. Authorised fuels (such as anthracite, coke and other 'smokeless fuels') can be used within a SCA because they burn either without causing smoke or that they contain less harmful pollutants. In addition, 'exempt appliances', such as ovens, wood burners and stoves, as specifically listed in the regulations, can be used in smoke control areas as they have passed tests which confirm that they are capable of burning an unauthorised or inherently smoky solid fuel without emitting harmful smoke. It was noted that authorised appliances can only be used for the fuel for which they are designed.

The report stated that unauthorised fuel, such as logs or coal, cannot be burnt in an open fireplace within a SCA because these fuels produce smoke containing harmful pollutants which have an impact of health and the environment. It also clarified that outdoor controlled burning of garden waste, and the use of barbeques and chimineas is not included in SCO's.

The reasons for the recommendation to approve the making of the order were given as improving enforcement of smoke control within the city by replacing the existing patchwork of old smoke control orders with a single city-wide order.

The report noted that the making of the Liverpool City Council Smoke Control (Revocation) Order 2025, and the proposed making of the further revocation and city-wide SCO was advertised in the Liverpool Echo and London Gazette on the 20th and 27th February 2025, and were also subject to consultation on the council's website and in its libraries for an 8-week period between 20th February 2025 and 18th April 2025. It stated that no objections were received during the consultation, but one comment was received suggesting that maximum fines should be set at a higher level. The commenter was advised that the maximum fine levels are set by statute and are not within the council's discretion.

The report also referenced a cabinet paper from 19th March 2024, which stated that domestic burning is the single largest contributor to harmful PM emissions¹, for example PM2.5 emissions from domestic burning accounted for 43% of total PM 2.5 emissions in 2019. It also noted that 26% of carbon dioxide emissions are from domestic heating and as such decarbonising the heating of 180,000 residential homes is key to the Council being able to meet its net zero Carbon target in 2030 as set out in the Liverpool Net Zero Carbon 2030 Plan.

Objections to Proposed Traffic Regulation Order on Stephenson Way

The committee was scheduled to consider objections received during the statutory consultation for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on Stephenson Way proposed in order to avoid potential road safety issues around the new school proposed on the former Sony building site. The report recommended that the objections be overruled and approval be given to make the order, as the requirement for the waiting restrictions is a condition of the planning permission for the proposed school.

The report stated that the Department for Education is proposing to use the former Sony Building on Stephenson Way as a school, and that prior approval has been granted by the council's planning service for the new King's Leadership Academy Wavertree school which is scheduled to open in September 2025. A condition of the planning approval is that At any time waiting restrictions are to be installed on Stephenson Way.

The proposal to make the TRO to extend the existing no waiting at any time restrictions (double yellow lines) for the full length of Stephenson Way, was advertised from 23rd April 2025 to 9th May 2025, and three objections to the TRO were received in response.

The report stated that the aim of the proposed TRO is to create a safer environment for the school pupils on their way to and from school, by reducing the parked traffic around the area and creating clear lines of sight for the vehicles that travel along Stephenson Way. The restrictions will also ensure that other businesses in the area do not have restricted access due to increased parking of vehicles associated with the school. It was also noted that the school is implementing a School Travel Plan to encourage sustainable travel to the school for pupils and staff.

The report summarised the objections as follows:

• Zigzag zones as seen in other schools should be implemented.
• Traffic calming measures, road humps/speed restrictions with speed signs to reduce vehicle speed would be more valuable.
• Car users often mistake Stephenson Way for access to the train station, add signs to negate this.
• Restrict the operation of the measures to school hours only.
• Install barriers to restrict access to for employees only.
• An NHS 24/7 emergency response service provider objected that these are unsuitable parking restrictions for a 'technology park', which will significantly hinder their ability to operate effectively from this location, and complained that they had not been consulted upon the planning proposal.

The report also included the officer's responses to these concerns:

• Zigzag zones as seen in other schools should be implemented (these are intended to be provided as part of future planning applications)
• Traffic calming measures, road humps / speed restriction be installed (there is no funding for these features at present, but they can be considered as part of future planning applications)
• Car users often mistake Stephenson Way for access to the train station, add signs to negate this. (this will be investigated by the traffic management team)
• Restrict the operation of the measures to school hours only. This could result in parking when events are held outside standard school hours, so 24 hour restrictions are preferred
• Barriers for employees only access. This is not practical as visitors need access to premises as well as employees.
• Unsuitable parking restrictions for a 'technology park' (the restrictions will benefit all users of the area and ensure access to premises, as most have their own off street parking)
• Hindrance to operation of emergency response service. The restrictions will improve the situation, as parking will be restricted 24/7 and prevent parking on Stephenson Way
• NHS company that operates 24/7 emergency vehicles wanted consultation on the proposed school being established (this is being undertaken as part of current planning application)

One of the objections included in the report pack was from Primary Care 24, who stated that:

The proposed restrictions are unsuitable for a technology park, which is the designated and appropriate use of this site, rather than that of a school. If there were concerns regarding road safety, these should have been addressed during the planning permission process to determine the site's suitability, rather than being considered retrospectively. Parking within the business park is already limited, and the proposal would significantly hinder our ability to operate effectively from this location. As an NHS service provider operating 24/7 urgent response vehicles, we have additional concerns particularly as we were not consulted regarding the establishment of a school at this site.