appeal decisions - sefton · 2018. 10. 9. · appeals received and decisions made between 11...
TRANSCRIPT
Please note that copies of all appeal decisions are available on our website:
http://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-applications/
Contact Officer: Mr Steve Matthews 0345 140 0845 (Option 4)
Email: [email protected]
Appeals Received and Decisions Made
Appeals received and decisions made between 11 September 2018 and 01 October 2018
Appeal Decisions
DC/2018/00002 (APP/M4320/W/18/3204039)
151 Southbank Road Southport PR8 6LZ
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to a mixed use (A1 retail
and A4 micropub) new access ramp to existing access and
replacment storeDecision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Written Representations
30/07/2018
24/09/2018
Dismissed
Reference:
DC/2018/00457 (APP/M4320/D/18/3202361)
11 Lonsdale Road Southport PR8 6NL
Prior approval submission for a proposed rear extension
projecting 4.80 metres from the rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse with a height of 3.00 metres at the eaves and
4.00 metres at the pitch (Valid 08/03/2018) Decision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Householder Appeal
13/08/2018
21/09/2018
Dismissed
Reference:
DC/2017/00798 (APP/M4320/W/17/3187366)
54 Linacre Road Litherland Liverpool L21 6NT
Change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's
suites
Decision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Written Representations
26/04/2018
11/09/2018
Allowed
Reference:
EN/2017/00439 (APP/M4329/C/17/3187396)
Stockwell Mount 54 Linacre Road Litherland
Appeal against without planning permission the change of use
of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four
manager's suitesDecision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Written Representations
26/04/2018
11/09/2018
Quashed
Reference:
New Appeals
DC/2018/00156 (APP/M4320/Z/18/3202986)
Spar 1-3 Green Lane Formby Liverpool L37 7DJ
Advertisement consent for the display of 2 No. non-illuminated
signs to the corner elevation (retrospective).
Decision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Householder Appeal
17/09/2018
Reference:
67 Windsor Road Southport PR9 9BX
Appeals received and decisions made between 11 September 2018 and 01 October 2018
DC/2018/00891 (APP/M4320/S/18/3208206)
Erection of a dormer extension to the rear of a dwellinghouse
including alteration of roof from hipped end to gable
Decision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Householder Appeal
24/09/2018
Reference:
DC/2018/01239 (APP/M4320/D/18/3210090)
42 Hillsview Road Ainsdale Southport PR8 3PN
Erection of of a single storey extension to the side, a garage
to the opposite side of the dwellinghouse following the
demolition of existing garage (Retrospective application)Decision Date:
Decision:
Start Date:
Procedure: Householder Appeal
24/09/2018
Reference:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018
by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 September 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/18/3204039
151 Southbank Road, Southport, Merseyside PR8 6LZ
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Ken Wilkins against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan
Borough Council.
The application Ref DC/2018/00002, dated 1 February 2018, was refused by notice
dated 26 April 2018.
The development proposed is a change of use from A1 retail (newsagent) to a mixed
use A1 retail and A4 micro pub to include outdoor seating area, installation of access
ramp and replacement of store.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The description of development set out above is taken from the planning
application form. Despite the description of development on the appeal form in section E, the description of development found on the decision notice more accurately reflects the development that was sought, and amended by the
appellant before the Council made their decision to refuse planning permission. I have considered the appeal on this basis.
3. As part of the appellant’s appeal submission, an amended plan was submitted (Ref: 1666/01 rev B, dated 15 May 2018). This plan changes the location of
the entrance and the off-street parking arrangements. Having regard to the Wheatcroft Principles1, the plan was not considered by the Council in their determination of the planning application. Nor has the plan been subject of
public consultation. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and a fresh planning application should usually be submitted to the
Council in the first instance. Thus, in the interests of fairness and natural justice, I consider that the Council and interested parties would be prejudiced by the consideration of the amended plan. My findings therefore relate to the
scheme that was determined by the Council, which omitted the outdoor seating area that was originally proposed.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with regards to noise and disturbance;
1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, P37]
Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/18/3204039
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
and (ii) the effect of the proposed change of use on the provision of facilities in
the local area.
Reasons
Living conditions
5. The appeal premise is a detached two storey property at the junction of Southbank Road and Falkland Road. The ground floor of the property is used
for the sale and delivery of newspapers and as a general grocery store between the hours of 06:30 to 19:00. Hard standing is in front of the property, which
offers space for several vehicles to park. The property’s first floor is used as a flat. To the north-west are three properties (Nos 153 and 155; No 157; and No 159 Southbank Road) that are occupied by commercial premises on the ground
floor and flats above. The surrounding area is largely characterised by residential properties.
6. Properties around the junction have front facing windows at ground and in some cases first floor. While bungalows at 182a, 182b and 184 Southbank Road; the detached property at 182 Southbank Road; and the semi-detached
pairing of 34 and 36 Falkland Road are set back, they face the proposed parking area and entrance door. Next to the site is 47 Falkland Road, which has
a two storey high bay window to the front serving a lounge and a bedroom. A low brick wall forms the boundary between No 47 and the parking area.
7. The proposed seating arrangement could mean that the micro pub could
accommodate around 20 people, but the appellant’s evidence states that its capacity would be for about 30 people. This higher figure would be a push
based on the size of the building. The premises would open from 06:00 to 20:00 for the sale of newspapers and so parcels can be picked up and dropped off. The micro pub would open during the hours of 10:00 and 22:00 for the
consumption of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, crisps and nuts. No food would be prepared or served and amplified or live music does not form part of
the appeal scheme. The premises would be open seven days a week. Despite reference to the sale of coffee on or off site, the proposal would change the existing operation of the premises, in terms of the nature of its use and the
times at which it operates.
8. Southbank Road is particularly well used by vehicular traffic. While there is
also some pedestrian footfall this is not unusual for the area. Noise from passing traffic does influence the local noise environment. This is confirmed by the appellant’s Noise Assessment (NA), which measured existing noise levels
on 6 March 2018 (Tuesday) between the hours of 21:30 and 22:30. The NA remarks that traffic on Southbank Road was intermittent at this time, but that
it does influence what is otherwise a relatively low background noise level that further reduces after 22:00. This reflects the representations of residents who
explain that traffic does reduce during the evening.
9. Subject to a planning condition to improve the sound insulation performance of the ceiling and walls of the ground floor, the NA confirms that there would not
be an unacceptable impact to the occupants of the first floor flat of No 151. The NA also explains that nearby residential occupants would not be subject of
unacceptable impacts in terms of noise breakout from within the premises.
10. I recognise that a micro pub may attract a different type of clientele, and that
Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/18/3204039
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
the appellant is looking to create a pleasant environment. Even so, the
potential number of people coming and going from the micro pub could bring very different effects than the current use, which operates when noise and
disturbance from comings and goings is generally accepted, and background noise levels are usually higher. The micro pub would be open during the day and into the evening at a later time than the hot food takeaway granted
planning permission at Nos 153 to 1552. People may visit the premises individually or in groups. There is a greater likelihood that people would visit in
the evenings, at weekends, and on bank holidays. The number of people who could be at the premises at any one time would result in comings and goings.
11. Residents are likely to notice the effects of these, whether they be on foot or
through the use of a vehicle, but they are unlikely to have a significant effect on their living conditions during the day and into the early evening throughout
the week. Even though the proposed closing time is not particularly late, the period before, during and after it is a more sensitive time of day when noise levels are lower. In this residential area, it is reasonable for residents to
expect peace and quiet at this time of day.
12. I would not expect every journey to the micro pub to be by car due to the
consumption of alcohol. However, some journeys would as not everyone would drink alcohol and people may be dropped off or picked up. Journeys on foot are also likely.
13. The ramped access to the premises would mean that persons coming and going, including those stepping outside to smoke would be near to No 47 and
the first floor flat of No 151 especially. There is therefore the potential for noise and disturbance from talking or shouting. Vehicles using the parking spaces would also result in noise and disturbance from manoeuvring, doors
banging, engines revving and music at a time later than the existing use. While the parking spaces may have historically been used, vehicle movements are
likely to be less frequent at this time of day compared to the proposed use. Added to this, there is the potential that residents around the junction could suffer significant effects from people making their way home at night, or from
people congregating, shouting or from the movement of vehicles.
14. While the Scarisbrick Bowling Club may be licensed until 23:00, have outdoor
seating, and not offer any off-street car parking provision, I do not know whether the club is used every day of the week. Also, some of the micro pubs referred to by the appellant are in a town or local centres, and I do not have
the full details or circumstances relating to the Hillside cases to be able to compare them to the appeal scheme’s surroundings.
15. Planning conditions are suggested by the main parties to minimise the effect of noise and disturbance. However, I am not satisfied that they would suitably
mitigate against noise and disturbance to the extent that residents would not be subject of significant harm to their living conditions due the potential number of people and the proposed entry arrangements.
16. For these reasons, I conclude, on this issue, that significant harm would be caused by the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring
residents, with regards to noise and disturbance. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Policies HC3 and ED10 of A Local Plan for Sefton (LP);
2 Council Application Ref: DC/2017/01890
Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/18/3204039
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
which jointly, among other things, seek to ensure that non-residential
development does not cause significant harm to local amenity.
17. While LP Policy ED2 is relied upon by the Council on this issue, for the reasons
that I explain in the second main issue, it is not relevant to the appeal scheme.
Provision of facilities
18. Notwithstanding my findings on the first main issue, for the purposes of the LP
Policy ED2, a shopping parade is defined as groupings of four or more consecutive retail units or four retail units in any six units.
19. Despite the planning permission granted at Nos 153 to 155, the hot food takeaway use has not yet started. Thus, I have considered the proposal in light of the circumstances as I found them at the time of my site visit. In
terms of the three units to the south-east, a health and beauty centre occupies Nos 153 to 155 (likely Sui Generis Use Class); a café (A3 Use Class) occupies
No 157; and a hairdresser (A1 Use Class) occupies No 159. When the appeal premises are considered as part of this row of four properties, it is not the only retail use in the row or in the wider area. In any event, the row of properties
does not form a shopping parade based on the definition in LP Policy ED2.
20. I conclude on this issue that despite the proposed change of use to a mixed
retail and micro pub (A1 and A4 Use Classes), there is no conflict with LP Policy ED2. The proposal would in any event retain a retail element.
Other matters
21. Although issues are raised about anti-social behaviour, litter and violence, there is no substantive evidence before me to support these points relating to
the area in which the premises would operate. The proposal would provide off-street car parking, and there are no restrictions on either road. Residential properties generally have their own off-street car parking provision. The speed
limit is 20 mph and there is good visibility on the lit roads of oncoming traffic and pedestrians using the footways. I do not consider that highway safety
would be compromised by the proposal.
22. The appellant engaged with the Council at pre-application, nevertheless the Council is not bound by this advice in their consideration of the proposal before
them having viewed the site and heard views for and against the scheme. I note there has been support for the proposal, and an alternative scheme has
been drafted, but I have determined the appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations have indicated otherwise.
Conclusion
23. I recognise that the appeal scheme aims to prevent the premises becoming vacant, and redress the financial viability of the existing retail use. In this
regard, the proposal would be beneficial to the local economy, and it would widen the range of uses in the area. However, these matters do not outweigh
the harm that I have identified to residents living conditions.
24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Andrew McGlone
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018
by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21 September 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/D/18/3202361 11 Lonsdale Road, Southport PR8 6NL
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of The
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as
amended).
The appeal is made by Mr J Stafford against the decision of Sefton Council.
The application Ref DC/2018/00457, dated 7 March 2018, was refused by notice dated
19 April 2018.
The development proposed is a single storey rear extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. Whether the proposal is permitted development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order).
Reasons
3. Development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order if the
enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.
4. The proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling, being the side wall of the two storey original outrigger.
A.1 (j) excludes the enlarged part from being permitted if it extends beyond the side wall of the house and has a width greater than half the width of the house. The whole of the proposed rear extension must be considered and as
this extension would be the full width of the house, it would not comply.
5. Consequently, the proposed extension is not permitted under the above Order.
As the proposal does not constitute permitted development there is no need to consider the amenity of the neighbours or planning policy.
Conclusion
6. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Katie McDonald
INSPECTOR
The Planning Inspectorate
Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 5 September 2018
by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11 September 2018
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396 Land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT as shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against an enforcement notice issued by
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The enforcement notice was issued on 25 September 2017. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the change of use of the
property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites. • The requirements of the notice are to cease the use of the premises as serviced
apartments and manager's suites. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 56 days. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (the Act).
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT • The appeal Is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal Is made by Mr Kamran Armani against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan
Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, was refused by notice dated
7 July 2017. • The development proposed is the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4
manager's suites.
Decisions
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396
1. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting the sub-heading "enforcement notice - operational developmenrand replacing it with "enforcement notice - material change of use" and adding "it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years" at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice. Subject to these corrections, the appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the change of use of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites on the land shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice at land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT, subject to the following condition:
ht
in c
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
(i) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with drawing No LPL 02 LCO2 Site Plan, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites at 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LPL 02 LCO2 Location Plan; LPL 02 LCO2 Site Plan; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Lower Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed First Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Second Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Mezzanine Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation North as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation East as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation South as Proposed and LPL 02 CD21 Elevation West as Proposed.
(H) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with approved plans, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.
Procedural Matters and the Notice
3. The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 24 July 2018 (the Framework). I afforded the main parties an opportunity to make comments in respect of the Framework and its relevance to the appeal. Whilst no comments were received from the main parties, I have nonetheless taken the Framework into account as part of the consideration of the ground (a) deemed planning application and the S78 planning appeal.
4. In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council's refusal notice rather than from the planning application form as this accurately reflects the proposed development.
5. In terms of Appeal A, the enforcement notice includes the sub-heading "enforcement notice — operational development". Furthermore, it does not refer to the breach of planning control occurring within either a four or ten year period. However, it is clear that the enforcement notice relates to a material
VSt_ciithwvw.gov.u1s. inSRP.CtOrdtP 2
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
change in the use of the property. The appellant describes the unauthorised development as serviced apartments "that allow for short and long stay customers whilst providing all the amenities a hotel room would. This can be in the form of room service, cleaning, bar facilities etc. These rooms will not cater for customers to live permanently like that found in HMO's". The enforcement appeal is made solely on ground (a) of Section 174(2) of the Act. On this basis, I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused to any party by correcting the notice in so far as deleting the aforementioned sub-heading and replacing it with "enforcement notice - material change of use" and adding "it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years" at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice.
Site and Main Issue
6. The reasons for serving the enforcement notice and the reasons for the refusal of planning permission are the same. Consequently, the main issue in respect of both Appeal A and Appeal B is the effect of the use of the appeal property upon the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding buildings in terms of noise and disturbance, comings and goings and on-street car parking demand.
7. The appeal property was previously in use as a public house known as Stockwell Mount: according to the Council this was its last lawful use. It is a three storey building on the corner of Linacre Road and Hapsford Road. The area is predominantly residential in character and the appeal site falls within a designated "Primarily Residential Area" in the Sefton Local Plan 2017 (LP). Appeal A and Appeal B relate to use of the property as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites. In respect of Appeal B, an eight space car park would be provided to the front of the property.
Noise and disturbance
8. There is no doubt that the breach of planning control and the section 78 appeal proposal relate to a more intensive use of the property in terms of residential accommodation when compared to the lawful use of the property as a public house on the ground floor with a hotel use on the two upper floors'. However, and in the context of the historic and lawful use of the property, coupled with the separation distances to the nearest residential properties and the location of the main entrance to the building, I do not consider that use of the property as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites has resulted in a material increase in comings and goings from a pedestrian or vehicular movement point of view.
9. On my site visit, I was able to see that the appeal site is located on the corner of a busy road (i.e. Linacre Road) and where background noise levels from vehicular traffic are relatively high. It is also in an area where pedestrian activity is relatively high owing to the proximity of Home Bargains on the opposite side of Linacre Road and the use of the nearby pedestrian crossing. Whilst the area is predominantly residential in character, it cannot be said that the building falls within an area where levels of noise and activity are very low.
10. The Council comments that there would be comings and goings at the appeal property during unsociable hours. I am not clear why the Council say that this would be the case. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the
The Council has referred to approved plans for planning permission 5/1996/0692
v. 'n ectorate 3
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
occupiers of the apartments would enter and leave the site during unsociable hours. Of course this may happen sometimes, but that would be the case for any number of residential properties in the area. Furthermore, I have no objective evidence before me to suggest that there have been any anti-social issues in the locality or that any reported issues are directly associated with the appeal development. In addition, I note that the property was previously used as a public house and so would have generated comings and goings including some activity at night.
11. On balance, and for the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development has not resulted in a significant increase in noise and disturbance for residents. Whilst I acknowledge that my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did not notice significant pedestrian or vehicular activity associated with the appeal property. In reaching my conclusion on this matter, I also note the comments made by the occupier of a property which is very close to the appeal building, who states that "although I do not agree with people changing the use of a building before they have planning permission, I would like to say that I have not heard any noise whatsoever from Trivelles Seaforth". The development therefore accords with the amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and paragraph 127 of the Framework.
On-street car parking demand
12. I note that the Highway Authority was consulted as part of the determination of the planning application (Appeal B). In such a response the Highway Authority commented that "the site is accessible to public transport and bus stops on Linacre Road within easy walking distance providing access to both local and more distant locations". The Highway Authority raise no concern in respect of matters of highway safety, but comment that "whilst there is some limited unrestricted on-street car parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, there is concern that the limited off-street car parking provision proposed could result in additional demand for on-street parking in what is primarily a residential area'
13. I note that there is space to the front of the property to enable eight cars to park off the highway and that the plans associated with the Section 78 appeal proposal show five secure bicycle parking spaces and three motorcycle parking spaces. Whilst my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did notice that there was quite a lot of available on-street car parking space on nearby surrounding roads including on Hapsford Road, Palmerston Drive and Penrhyn Drive. There was no evidence of high levels of on-street car parking demand in the area.
14. Whilst the Planning Committee members were fully entitled to make a contrary decision to the officer recommendation to approve planning permission, in respect of car parking issues the Council's appeal statement simply states "as there is a limited amount of on-street parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, it is likely that customer parking in these streets will cause loss of amenity for residents". The property is already in use as serviced apartments. Had there been a car parking issue, I do not doubt that the Council would have been able to provide objective evidence in the form of car parking surveys and/or photographic evidence. Such evidence has not been forthcoming and the Council's case seems to be based on 'likely" impact which
ov k m nspectorate 4
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
I do not consider to be reasonably substantiated. The Council's concerns certainly do not reflect what I was able to see on my site visit.
15. Whilst I note the concern raised by the Highway Authority about on-street car parking, such a concern has not been substantiated with specific evidence. Indeed, I note that the officer report considered by Planning Committee made this very point. Given the previous use of the building, coupled with what appears to be a highly accessible site and what I was able to see on my site visit (i.e. spare on-street car parking capacity), the evidence before me does not suggest that the development gives rise to on-street car parking problems for the local community. Subject to conditions relating to the permanent provision of marked out on-site car parking spaces/manoeuvring space and bicycle and motorcycle parking provision, I conclude that the development would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon levels of on-street car parking demand in the locality. On this basis, the development accords with the car parking and amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and the Framework.
Conditions
16. Whilst the property is in use as 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites, I was able to see on my site visit that the existing development did not fully reflect the proposed plans in so far that a single storey side addition to the building to facilitate access to the rear for the building for the parking of motorcycles had not been removed. For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of certainty, I shall attach a planning condition relating to the accompanying plans.
17. In respect of Appeals A and B, in the interests of ensuring efficient and effective use of the land for car parking/manoeuvring purposes, and to limit the number of vehicles parked on the surrounding highways, it is necessary that the frontage of the property is permanently marked out and made available for the parking of eight vehicles. In the interests of environmental sustainability, and to encourage more trips to be undertaken by more sustainable modes of transport, it is necessary that the aforementioned planning condition also includes the provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities. In order to comply with the requirement to provide motorcycle spaces to the rear, it would be necessary to remove part of the single storey side addition to the building.
Conclusions
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396
18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on ground (a) and planning permission will be granted. The enforcement notice will therefore be quashed.
hops://www.gov.uk/planning-7ispeCCQrate 5
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account representations made by other interested parties including the signed petition objecting to the proposal. None of the comments made by objectors to the proposal outweigh my overall conclusion on the main issue.
.71artrey
INSPECTOR
i.qov k/ n In ns torate 6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 5 September 2018
by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11 September 2018
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396
Land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT as shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice
The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against an enforcement notice issued by
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.
The enforcement notice was issued on 25 September 2017.
The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the change of use of the
property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s suites.
The requirements of the notice are to cease the use of the premises as serviced
apartments and manager’s suites.
The period for compliance with the requirements is 56 days.
The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (the Act).
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan
Borough Council.
The application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, was refused by notice dated
7 July 2017.
The development proposed is the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4
manager’s suites.
Decisions
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396
1. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting the sub-
heading “enforcement notice – operational development” and replacing it with “enforcement notice – material change of use” and adding “it appears that the
breach of planning control took place within the last ten years” at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice. Subject to these corrections, the appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Planning permission is granted on the
application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the change of
use of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s suites on the land shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice at land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT, subject to
the following condition:
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
(i) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle
parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in
accordance with drawing No LPL 02 LC02 Site Plan, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and
available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this
condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use
to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager’s suites at 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to
the following conditions:
(i) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: LPL 02 LC02 Location Plan; LPL 02 LC02 Site Plan; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Lower Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed First Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Second
Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Mezzanine Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation North as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation East as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation
South as Proposed and LPL 02 CD21 Elevation West as Proposed.
(ii) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled,
surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with approved plans, the approved
use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge
to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be
suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.
Procedural Matters and the Notice
3. The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 24 July 2018 (the
Framework). I afforded the main parties an opportunity to make comments in respect of the Framework and its relevance to the appeal. Whilst no comments
were received from the main parties, I have nonetheless taken the Framework into account as part of the consideration of the ground (a) deemed planning
application and the S78 planning appeal.
4. In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s refusal notice rather than from the planning application form as this
accurately reflects the proposed development.
5. In terms of Appeal A, the enforcement notice includes the sub-heading
“enforcement notice – operational development”. Furthermore, it does not refer to the breach of planning control occurring within either a four or ten year period. However, it is clear that the enforcement notice relates to a material
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
change in the use of the property. The appellant describes the unauthorised
development as serviced apartments “that allow for short and long stay customers whilst providing all the amenities a hotel room would. This can be in
the form of room service, cleaning, bar facilities etc. These rooms will not cater for customers to live permanently like that found in HMO’s”. The enforcement appeal is made solely on ground (a) of Section 174(2) of the Act.
On this basis, I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused to any party by correcting the notice in so far as deleting the aforementioned sub-heading and
replacing it with “enforcement notice – material change of use” and adding “it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years” at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice.
Site and Main Issue
6. The reasons for serving the enforcement notice and the reasons for the refusal
of planning permission are the same. Consequently, the main issue in respect of both Appeal A and Appeal B is the effect of the use of the appeal property upon the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding buildings in terms of
noise and disturbance, comings and goings and on-street car parking demand.
7. The appeal property was previously in use as a public house known as
Stockwell Mount: according to the Council this was its last lawful use. It is a three storey building on the corner of Linacre Road and Hapsford Road. The area is predominantly residential in character and the appeal site falls within a
designated “Primarily Residential Area” in the Sefton Local Plan 2017 (LP). Appeal A and Appeal B relate to use of the property as 23 serviced apartments
and 4 manager’s suites. In respect of Appeal B, an eight space car park would be provided to the front of the property.
Noise and disturbance
8. There is no doubt that the breach of planning control and the section 78 appeal proposal relate to a more intensive use of the property in terms of residential
accommodation when compared to the lawful use of the property as a public house on the ground floor with a hotel use on the two upper floors1. However, and in the context of the historic and lawful use of the property, coupled with
the separation distances to the nearest residential properties and the location of the main entrance to the building, I do not consider that use of the property
as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager’s suites has resulted in a material increase in comings and goings from a pedestrian or vehicular movement point of view.
9. On my site visit, I was able to see that the appeal site is located on the corner of a busy road (i.e. Linacre Road) and where background noise levels from
vehicular traffic are relatively high. It is also in an area where pedestrian activity is relatively high owing to the proximity of Home Bargains on the
opposite side of Linacre Road and the use of the nearby pedestrian crossing. Whilst the area is predominantly residential in character, it cannot be said that the building falls within an area where levels of noise and activity are very low.
10. The Council comments that there would be comings and goings at the appeal property during unsociable hours. I am not clear why the Council say that this
would be the case. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the
1 The Council has referred to approved plans for planning permission S/1996/0692
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
occupiers of the apartments would enter and leave the site during unsociable
hours. Of course this may happen sometimes, but that would be the case for any number of residential properties in the area. Furthermore, I have no
objective evidence before me to suggest that there have been any anti-social issues in the locality or that any reported issues are directly associated with the appeal development. In addition, I note that the property was previously used
as a public house and so would have generated comings and goings including some activity at night.
11. On balance, and for the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development has not resulted in a significant increase in noise and disturbance for residents. Whilst I acknowledge that my site visit was only a snap shot in
time, I did not notice significant pedestrian or vehicular activity associated with the appeal property. In reaching my conclusion on this matter, I also note the
comments made by the occupier of No 1 Palmerston Drive, a property which is very close to the appeal building, who states that “although I do not agree with people changing the use of a building before they have planning permission, I
would like to say that I have not heard any noise whatsoever from Trivelles Seaforth”. The development therefore accords with the amenity aims of
Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and paragraph 127 of the Framework.
On-street car parking demand
12. I note that the Highway Authority was consulted as part of the determination of
the planning application (Appeal B). In such a response the Highway Authority commented that “the site is accessible to public transport and bus stops on
Linacre Road within easy walking distance providing access to both local and more distant locations”. The Highway Authority raise no concern in respect of matters of highway safety, but comment that “whilst there is some limited
unrestricted on-street car parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, there is concern that the limited off-street car parking provision
proposed could result in additional demand for on-street parking in what is primarily a residential area”.
13. I note that there is space to the front of the property to enable eight cars to
park off the highway and that the plans associated with the Section 78 appeal proposal show five secure bicycle parking spaces and three motorcycle parking
spaces. Whilst my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did notice that there was quite a lot of available on-street car parking space on nearby surrounding roads including on Hapsford Road, Palmerston Drive and Penrhyn
Drive. There was no evidence of high levels of on-street car parking demand in the area.
14. Whilst the Planning Committee members were fully entitled to make a contrary decision to the officer recommendation to approve planning permission, in
respect of car parking issues the Council’s appeal statement simply states “as there is a limited amount of on-street parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, it is likely that customer parking in these streets will cause
loss of amenity for residents”. The property is already in use as serviced apartments. Had there been a car parking issue, I do not doubt that the
Council would have been able to provide objective evidence in the form of car parking surveys and/or photographic evidence. Such evidence has not been forthcoming and the Council’s case seems to be based on “likely” impact which
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
I do not consider to be reasonably substantiated. The Council’s concerns
certainly do not reflect what I was able to see on my site visit.
15. Whilst I note the concern raised by the Highway Authority about on-street car
parking, such a concern has not been substantiated with specific evidence. Indeed, I note that the officer report considered by Planning Committee made this very point. Given the previous use of the building, coupled with what
appears to be a highly accessible site and what I was able to see on my site visit (i.e. spare on-street car parking capacity), the evidence before me does
not suggest that the development gives rise to on-street car parking problems for the local community. Subject to conditions relating to the permanent provision of marked out on-site car parking spaces/manoeuvring space and
bicycle and motorcycle parking provision, I conclude that the development would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon levels of on-street car
parking demand in the locality. On this basis, the development accords with the car parking and amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and the Framework.
Conditions
16. Whilst the property is in use as 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s
suites, I was able to see on my site visit that the existing development did not fully reflect the proposed plans in so far that a single storey side addition to the building to facilitate access to the rear for the building for the parking of
motorcycles had not been removed. For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of certainty, I shall attach a planning condition relating to the
accompanying plans.
17. In respect of Appeals A and B, in the interests of ensuring efficient and effective use of the land for car parking/manoeuvring purposes, and to limit the
number of vehicles parked on the surrounding highways, it is necessary that the frontage of the property is permanently marked out and made available for
the parking of eight vehicles. In the interests of environmental sustainability, and to encourage more trips to be undertaken by more sustainable modes of transport, it is necessary that the aforementioned planning condition also
includes the provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities. In order to comply with the requirement to provide motorcycle spaces to the rear, it would
be necessary to remove part of the single storey side addition to the building.
Conclusions
Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396
18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on
ground (a) and planning permission will be granted. The enforcement notice will therefore be quashed.
Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6
Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366
19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account representations made by
other interested parties including the signed petition objecting to the proposal. None of the comments made by objectors to the proposal outweigh my overall conclusion on the main issue.
D Hartley
INSPECTOR