Appeals Received and Decisions Made. 1 for... · 2020-06-18 · Appeals received and decisions made...

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 15 February 2020 and 09 June 2020

Appeal Decisions

DC/2019/01577 (APP/M4320/W/20/3244498)

Land To The Side Of 1 Dunes Drive Formby Liverpool L37 1PE

Erection of a detached dwellinghouse

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:

Procedure: Written Representations

05/02/2020

08/06/2020

Dismissed

Reference:

EN/2018/00328 (APP/M4320/C/19/3235269)

139 Bispham Road Southport PR9 7BL

Change of use of the area to the side of the property to create an outdoor eating area along with the erection of a boundary wall, the erection of an external brick built BBQ and flue and erection of an air conditioning unit on the side elevation of the building

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


13/01/2020

15/05/2020

Part Allow/Dismissed

Reference:

DC/2018/01439 (APP/M4320/W/19/3224812)

84 College Road Crosby Liverpool L23 0RP

Variation of conditions 3 and 4 pursuant to planning permission S/2004/0096 (approved 30.03.2004) to allow the premises to operate as a restaurant open between 09:00 and 18:00 Monday to Wednesday and 09:00 to 22:00 Thursday to Sunday

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


15/05/2019

14/04/2020

Allowed

Reference:

DC/2019/00132 (APP/M4320/W/19/3241168)

35 King Street Southport PR8 1LG

Change of use from a Guest House (C1) to a House in multiple occupation HMO (Sui Generis) (8 units)

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


11/12/2019

01/04/2020

Allowed

Reference:

DC/2019/01617 (APP/M4320/Z/19/3243924)

David Pluck (Betting Office) 19 Liverpool Road Birkdale Southport PR8 4AR

Advertisement Consent to display window graphics to the front and side elevations

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:

Procedure: Householder Appeal

07/02/2020

27/03/2020

Dismissed

Reference:


DC/2019/00965 (APP/M4320/W/19/3236720)

2A Fishermans Close Formby L37 1XX

Removal of Condition 11 pursuant to planning permission ref DC/2018/01822 approved on 19/11/2018

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


23/09/2019

19/03/2020

Allowed

Reference:

EN/2019/00533 (APP/M4320/C/19/3238652)

4 Litherland Road Bootle L20 3BZ

Appeal against without planning permission and within the last 4 (four) years the installation of an ATM and installation of a blue panel surrounding the ATM to the front elevation of the shop premises Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


05/12/2019

17/03/2020

Dismissed

Reference:

DC/2019/00612 (APP/M4320/W/19/3236816)

52A Dowhills Road Crosby Liverpool L23 8SP

Erection of 2 detached dwellings

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


19/11/2019

03/03/2020

Allowed

Reference:

DC/2019/01810 (APP/M4320/D/19/3241867)

24 Poplar Avenue Crosby Liverpool L23 2SU

Variation of Condition 2 pursuant to planning permission DC/2019/00668 approved on 31/05/2019 to allow the render to be painted pink as referenced on the updated drawing number 1523.003 106 Rev 5 Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


13/01/2020

27/02/2020

Dismissed

Reference:

DC/2018/01959 (APP/M4320/W/19/3239836)

106 Cambridge Road Southport PR9 9RZ

Change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a residential institution (C2) and installation of a disabled access ramp to the front entrance

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


05/12/2019

18/02/2020

Dismissed

Reference:

New Appeals

DC/2019/01977 (APP/M4320/D/20/3246270)

14 Argarmeols Road Formby Liverpool L37 7BU

Erection of a wall and gates to the front boundary (Retrospective)

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


03/03/2020

29/05/2020

Dismissed

Reference:


DC/2019/02386 (APP/M4320/W/20/3252390)

23 Park Drive Blundellsands Liverpool L23 6TN

Erection of a two storey detached dwelling, including alterations to site access, following the demolition of existing double garage.

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


05/06/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/02435 (APP/M4320/W/20/3251212)

Land Adjacent To 8 Dowhills Road Crosby Liverpool L23 8SN

Erection of a detached dwellinghouse after demolition of the existing extension, car port and garage

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


03/06/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/01518 (APP/M4320/W/20/3247071)

44 Hartwood Road Southport PR9 9AW

Change of use of part of the garden to a Cattery at the rear of the dwellinghouse along with the retention of 5 (five) detached wooden structures to be used in connection with the cattery

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


06/03/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/02132 (APP/M4320/W/20/3248160)

98-102 King Street Southport PR8 1LQ

Change of use to C3 (6 residential apartments)

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


22/05/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/01072 (APP/M4320/W/20/3249094)

78 Botanic Road Southport PR9 7NE

Change of use of existing A1 use class property to mixed use A1 and A4 use class, with alterations to the roof and the rear elevation of the existing extension

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


26/05/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/01314 (APP/M4320/Y/20/3248621)

15 Adelaide Terrace Waterloo Liverpool L22 8QD

Listed Building Consent for internal structural alterations, installation of a wood burning stove, installation of a bath and wc to the second floor bedroom, the erection of timber stud partition to second floor with extract fan venting to the rear elevation and alterations to the window

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


22/05/2020

Reference:


DC/2019/01170 (APP/M4320/W/20/3246307)

4A Bold Street Southport PR9 0DD

Change of use from an A1 shop to an A4 drinking establishment with an outdoor seating area

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


18/05/2020

Reference:

DC/2019/01059 (APP/M4320/W/19/3241123)

43A Old Park Lane Southport PR9 7BQ

Removal of Condition 4 pursuant to planning permission ref DC/2017/00755 approved 31/08/2017

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


09/03/2020

Reference:

EN/2019/00417 (APP/M4320/C/20/3248228)

41A Altcar Road Formby Liverpool L37 8DS

Appeal against erection of a front boundary wall adjacent to the highway erected above 1 metre in height

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


13/03/2020

Reference:

EN/2019/00692 (APP/M4320/C/3247692)

Slaidburn Industrial Estate Slaidburn Crescent Southport

Without planning permission and within the last ten years, the unauthorised change of use of the land to B8 storage and distribution of scaffolding and associated material at JAS Scaffolding Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


18/05/2020

Reference:

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2020

by Sarah Manchester BSc MSc PhD MIEnvSc

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 8th June 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/20/3244498

1 Dunes Drive, Formby, Sefton L37 1PE

• 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 J Osborne against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

• The application Ref DC/2019/01577, dated 05 August 2019, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2019.

• The development proposed is erection of 1no. detached dwelling (dormer bungalow) on land at 1 Dunes Drive.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of

the area.

Reasons

3. The appeal site is part of the garden of No 1, which is a detached 2 storey

property with a single storey side extension. It is at the junction of Dunes Drive and Larkhill Lane, where the urban area meets the open countryside and

woodland. Dunes Drive is a sinuous residential road with relatively modern

detached and semi-detached 2 storey and single storey dwellings arranged in

broadly similar groups. Notwithstanding extensions and alterations, the similar ages and styles of properties, together with their characteristically open

frontages and thebackdrop of mature woodland, results in a harmonious and

spacious character and appearance.

4. Although generously sized, the triangular shape of the appeal site is a

constraint to its development. Consequently, the dwelling would be awkwardly sited, being both markedly set back from the front elevation of No 1 and overly

close to the footway. By virtue of its prominent location and the significant

increase in the bulk of built development in close proximity to the road, the proposal would be a dominant feature that would erode the open character of

the street scene.

5. The tapering shape of the appeal site would result in the dwelling being sited

uncharacteristically close to the rear boundary relative to the neighbouring

properties. The rear garden would be noticeably shorter than and it would not


Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/20/3244498

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

relate well to the neighbouring rear gardens. The closer approach of built

development to the rear boundaries would reduce the sense of openness for

users of the adjacent footpath. Although No 1 and the neighbouring properties are on slightly different building lines, they nevertheless form a relatively

coherent group. In contrast, by virtue of its scale, design and siting, the

proposal would be an incongruous feature that would not relate well to its

surroundings.

6. The appeal site is well screened by trees and shrubs. However, there would be no guarantee that the boundary planting would be retained or that it would

function to screen the proposal. In this respect, it seems likely that future

occupiers would seek to remove or reduce the height of boundary trees in

particular, in order to prevent loss of light to habitable rooms windows and shading of the garden. In any case, vegetation is not permanent, and it should

not be relied upon to screen inappropriate development from view.

7. My attention has been drawn to properties close to the footway elsewhere in

the area, including 25 Gorse Way. However, No 25 differs from the appeal

proposal in a number of ways, including by virtue of being reasonably consistent with the neighbouring properties in terms of its building line and

length of rear garden. Moreover, it appears to occupy a larger plot in a less

prominent location than the appeal site. Therefore, it is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme and it does not provide a justification for it.

8. Therefore, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and

appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies SD1 and EQ2 of A Local

Plan for Sefton Adopted April 2017. These require, among other things, that

development makes a positive contribution to its surroundings, having regard to local character and distinctiveness. It would also conflict with the policies in

the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that require

development to add to the overall quality of the area and sense of place.

Other considerations

9. At the time the application was determined, the Council was unable to

demonstrate a 5 year housing supply (5YHLS). However, evidence provided to

the appeal now demonstrates in excess of a 5YHLS. While this does not prevent further residential development from coming forward, one dwelling would make

a negligible contribution to the housing supply.

10. My attention has been drawn to planning permission for a 2 storey front and

side extension to the appeal property (ref DC/2018/02002), which was

subsequently varied to omit the 2 storey side extension (ref DC/2019/01576) and thereby accommodate the appeal scheme. I have assessed the appeal

scheme on its own merits. Nevertheless, I have considered whether the impact

would be different to that arising from the fall back position.

11. While the proposed dwelling would be a similar height to the 2 storey side

extension, it would have a larger footprint and it would be a noticeably bulkier feature. It would also differ from the extension by virtue of being visually and

functionally separate from the appeal property. Therefore, the approved

scheme is not directly comparable to, and it does not provide a justification for, the appeal scheme.




12. I appreciate that the appellant would have preferred the various planning

applications at this site to be determined by the same Council officer. However,

on the basis of the evidence, it was not unreasonable of the Council to determine each separate scheme on its own merits and in accordance with the

development plan.

13. The appeal site is in an accessible location. There would be no harm to the

living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. The proposal would

provide adequate living conditions, including outdoor space, for future occupiers. It would not result in adverse effects on highway safety. However,

these are requirements of the development plan and they do not weigh in

favour of the scheme.

14. The Framework definition of previously developed land (PDL) excludes land in

built-up areas such as private residential gardens. Therefore, the appeal site is not PDL and policies that relate to the effective use of PDL do not apply.

Furthermore, given the harm that I have found, policies that support the

development of suitable windfall sites within existing settlements do not weigh

in favour of the scheme.

15. I note third party concerns relating to the ownership of trees that have been

felled at this site. However, this is a private matter and it is not an issue to be addressed as part of this appeal.

Conclusion

16. I have found that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and

there are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict. For this

reason, the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

Sarah Manchester

INSPECTOR



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 May 2020

by John Braithwaite BSc(Arch) BArch(Hons) RIBA MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 15 May 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/C/19/3235269

Joarr Hot Food Emporium, 139 Bispham Road, Southport PR9 7BL

• 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 Act).

• The appeal is made by Mr Arif Deniz against an enforcement notice issued by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

• The enforcement notice was issued on 30 July 2019. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is change of use of the area to

the side of the property to create an outdoor eating area along with the erection of a boundary wall, the erection of an external brick built BBQ and flue and erection of an air conditioning unit on the side elevation of the property.

• The requirements of the notice are 1. Cease using the outdoor area as an outdoor eating area; 2. Remove all of the chairs and tables from the outside area; 3. Remove the boundary wall and make good the ground where the wall has been removed; 4. Remove the outdoor brick built BBQ and flue and make good and make good any damage to the wall of the building behind where the brick built BBQ and flue were located; and 5. Remove the air conditioning unit from the side elevation of the building and make good any damage caused to building behind where the air conditioning unit was located.

• The period for compliance with the requirements is two months.

• The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (c), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Decision

1. The ground (a) appeal is allowed in so far as it relates to the erection of a

boundary wall. Planning permission is granted for the erection of a boundary wall

at Joarr Hot Food Emporium, 139 Bispham Road, Southport.

2. The enforcement notice is varied by:

1. The deletion of ‘along with the erection of a boundary wall’ in section

3 of the notice;

2. The deletion of requirement 3 in section 5 of the notice; and

3. The deletion of ‘2 months’ in section 5 of the notice and the

substitution instead of ‘4 months’.

3. Subject to the variation and to the grant of planning permission the appeal is

dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld.


Appeal Decision APP/M4320/C/19/3235269


Applications for costs

4. An application for costs has been made by Mr Deniz against Sefton

Metropolitan Borough Council and by the Council against Mr Deniz. These

applications are the subjects of separate Decisions.

Reasons

Background information

5. Joarr Hot Food Emporium is a café with frontages to Bispham Road and

Thornton Road, for which retrospective planning permission DC/2015/00901 was

granted on 7 August 2015 for ‘change of use from laundrette to a café including

the erection of flue to the rear elevation’. Before the alleged breach of planning control occurred the café had open forecourt areas on both road frontages. The

forecourt area on the Thornton Road frontage has been enclosed by the erection of

a brick wall around an outdoor eating area. A brick built BBQ with metal flue above has been built alongside the wall to the property and attached to this wall is

an air conditioning unit. Before the enforcement notice was issued a retrospective

planning application (ref. no. DC/2018/01467) was submitted for ‘change of use of

the area to the side of the existing café to create an outdoor eating area’. The application was refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed.

6. The Appellant’s Agent has, in his appeal statement and for each ground of

appeal, referred to the requirements of the enforcement notice. The requirements

of the notice are only relevant to the ground (f) appeal and, if necessary, in

consideration of the ground (g) appeal. It is the alleged breach of planning control that is relevant to the ground (a) and (c)appeals.

The ground (c) appeal

7. The ground (c) appeal relates to the use of the forecourt as an outdoor eating area and to the erection of the boundary wall. It is worth noting that the

breach of planning control specifically refers to a boundary wall. This is the wall

adjoining the pavement to Thornton Road; the wall at right angles to this boundary

wall subdivides the two forecourt areas and is not a boundary wall.

8. The location plan submitted with planning application DC/2015/00901 identified, with a red line, the extent of the property to which the application

related. The property encompasses the building and the forecourt areas. The

Appellant therefore maintains that the use for which planning permission was

granted extends over the forecourt areas and that planning permission is not thus required for the outdoor eating area. The submission of a location plan “…which

identifies the land to which the application relates” is a requirement of Section

6(c)(i) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (the 2010 Order).

9. Section 6(c)(ii) of the 2010 Order requires the submission of “…other plans,

drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the

subject of the application”. A diagrammatic plan submitted with the application

indicated the internal layout of the café including eating and food preparation areas. Nothing in the application indicated that the eating area of the café would

extend outside the building. Furthermore, the application form indicated that the

use would retain three parking spaces and, within the outdoor seating area and attached to the external wall of the building, there is a small sign that states

‘Customer Parking’. The forecourt area was clearly intended to be for parking.




10. The brick boundary wall that encloses the forecourt area is 110 cm high.

The wall exceeds the 100 cm height limit of a wall adjoining a highway that can be

erected under permitted development rights afforded by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)

(England) Order 2015 (the 2015 Order). The height difference is not de minimis

and, in any event, the conditions and criteria of the 2015 Order must be strictly

applied. The brick boundary wall is not permitted development.

11. Planning permission DC/2015/00901 does not permit use of the forecourt as an outdoor eating area and the brick boundary wall is not permitted development.

The ground (c) appeal thus fails.

The ground (a) appeal

12. The café was closed at the time of the site visit due to the COVID-19

pandemic crisis. However, there is no evidence to indicate that circumstances

have changed since the previous appeal was determined about one year ago, other

than that which is mentioned in the Appellant’s Agent’s statement. He mentions that previous heavy tables have been replaced by lightweight tables and chairs and

that these would be used when the café reopens, and could be stored away when

not in use at the rear of the café. He suggests that this matter could be the

subject of a condition, as could the suggested requirement that the use of the outdoor eating area ceases at 2100 hours.

13. It is important that there is consistency in decision making. The main issue

in the ground (a) appeal and in relation to the use of the outdoor eating area and

the BBQ is therefore whether the imposition of conditions as suggested would

overcome the reasons for dismissal of the planning appeal. The BBQ is considered with the outdoor eating area because it facilitates and supports the eating use.

14. The storage of lightweight tables and chairs when not in use would overcome

concerns regarding use of the outdoor eating area outside of café opening hours.

Previously the outdoor eating area has accommodated 10 tables each capable of

seating 4-6 people. Even if the replacement lightweight tables were of the same number and could each seat only 4 people, up to 40 customers could be

accommodated at any one time. It is quite possible, on a warm summer evening

when the installed BBQ is in use, that this would occur. It is on the same evenings that residents of nearby dwellings would be wishing to use their garden areas for

outdoor eating and other activities. There are dwellings close to the north of the

appeal property and on the opposite side of Thornton Road. Activity associated with up to 40 customers in the outdoor eating area and in such close proximity to

residential properties, even only before 2100 hours, would be likely to cause

significant noise and disturbance for nearby residents.

15. Other matters considered by the previous Inspector are the same and, as in

the previous decision, do not affect the principal conclusion that, on reopening of the café, use of the BBQ and the outdoor eating area would result in significant

noise and disturbance that would harm the living conditions of nearby residents.

The resumption of use of the outdoor eating area and the BBQ would thus conflict

with, in particular, policy HC3 of A Local Plan for Sefton.

16. The external flue above the BBQ and the air conditioning unit were not considered in the previous planning application and appeal. The main issue with

regard to these two items of equipment is their effect on the appearance of the

building and the visual amenity of the area.




17. The silver metal flue extends upwards from the top of the BBQ and

terminates above the roof of the building. The air conditioning unit is attached to

the same brick elevation as the flue above and to the left of a ground floor window, and is encased in a metal grille. Both items of equipment are, given, their form

and materials, prominent and visually dominant features that detract from the

appearance of the building, and painting the flue black would not diminish its

prominence to any significant degree. The building, given its corner location, is in a prominent location and the items of equipment also detract from the visual

amenity of the area. The flue and the air conditioning unit conflict with policy EQ2

of A Local Plan for Sefton.

18. The Council has not identified any harm caused directly by the boundary

wall, only that it facilitates the use of the forecourt area for outdoor eating. The wall, in itself, does not facilitate that use, which could continue whether or not the

wall is in place. The wall is unobtrusive, is similar to many other boundary walls in

the vicinity, and does not cause any harm.

19. The ground (a) appeal succeeds in so far as it relates to the boundary wall

but fails in so far as it relates to the change of use of the area to the side of the property to create an outdoor eating area, the erection of a brick built BBQ and

flue, and the erection of the air conditioning unit. Planning permission has been

granted for the erection of a boundary wall at Joarr Hot Food Emporium, 139 Bispham Road, Southport and the enforcement notice has been varied accordingly.

The ground (f) appeal

20. The only specific comment made by the Appellant under the ground (f)

appeal relates to the boundary wall, refence to which has been removed from the enforcement notice. Otherwise, the notice is not excessive because it only requires

that which is necessary to remedy the breach of planning control. The ground (f)

appeal thus fails.

The ground (g) appeal

21. Two months is insufficient time to arrange for and relocate the air

conditioning unit, which will probably include significant internal works. The Appellant has asked that the compliance period be extended to four months. This

is a reasonable period. The ground (g) appeal thus succeeds and the enforcement

notice has been varied accordingly.

John Braithwaite

Inspector



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2019

by S D Castle BSC(Hons) MA MRTPI


Decision date: 14th April 2020


84 College Road, Crosby L23 0RP

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with

conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by A.S.C Bars Ltd against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2018/01439, dated 16 August 2018, was refused by notice

dated 08 February 2019. • The application sought change of use of the ground floor of the premises to a coffee

shop without complying with condition Nos 3 and 4 attached to planning permission Ref

S/2004/0096, dated 05 April 2004. • The condition in dispute is No 3 which states that: The premises shall not open for

business outside the hours of Mon-Sun 10.00am – 6.00pm. • The reason given for the condition is to ensure that nearby properties are not adversely

affected by the development.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of

the ground floor of the premises to a coffee shop at 84 College Road, Crosby, L23 0RP in accordance with the application, Ref DC/2018/01439, dated

16 August 2018, without compliance with conditions Nos 3 and 4 previously

imposed on planning permission Ref: S/2004/0096 granted on 05 April 2004, but subject to the new conditions set out in the Schedule to this decision.

Background

2. Permission was granted in 2004 for the change of use of the site to a coffee

shop. That original permission was subject to conditions that limited opening hours to between 1000h and 1800h Monday to Sunday (condition no 3) and

required the premises to be used for a coffee shop and for no other purpose,

including any other purpose in Use Class A3 (condition no 4). The appellant is seeking the variation of these conditions to allow the premises to operate as a

restaurant open between 0900h and 1800h Monday to Wednesday and 0900 to

2200h Thursday to Sunday.

3. At the time of my site visit, it was clear that the current use of the premises

was as a restaurant rather than a coffee shop. The Council have confirmed that it has no objection to the use of the premises as a restaurant, advising that the

original condition was worded at a time when A3 uses included drinking

establishments and hot food takeaways. A coffee shop providing seating and




hot food clearly falls within the A3 (restaurant) Use Class and would have a

similar impact on the surrounding area, in terms of character and living

conditions, as other types of use within the A3 Use Class. I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the restrictive nature of condition 4 is

necessary for the protection of the character and living conditions of

surrounding properties. I therefore concur with the Council that condition 4

does not meet the tests for applying conditions stated at paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Accordingly, the main

issue in this case relates to the proposed extension of the opening hours of the

premises.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is the effect of extending the authorised hours of operation on

the living conditions of local residents with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

Reasons

5. The site is located at ground floor level on the corner of College Road and

Brookfield Avenue. College Road is a busy thoroughfare, including many commercial activities at ground floor level within close proximity to the site.

Brookfield Avenue, in contrast, is a quieter and more residential side street.

The premises has large glazed windows facing onto both College Road and Brookfield Avenue, with a glazed conservatory projecting towards Brookfield

Avenue. The conservatory has double doors facing towards College Road that

provide access to a small area used for outdoor seating. A small yard where

refuse is stored is located to the rear of the site. The yard opens onto Brookfield Avenue and provides access to the residential property located

above the premises. Other dwellings are located above many of the commercial

units facing onto College Road and access to a number of these is provided via an alleyway to the rear of the site. Other dwellings are located in close

proximity to the site on Brookfield Avenue, including to the rear (north-east)

and side (south-east). Whilst double yellow lines bound much of the corner plot, there is public parking available on both College Road and Brookfield

Avenue.

6. The proposals are supported by an Environmental Noise Report (ENR) that

advises works to the separating floor between the premises and the first-floor

dwelling above are necessary to ensure appropriate sound insulation. The ENR also assesses expected ‘breakout’ noise (i.e noise that would be expected to

emanate from the premises), and other commercial noise (internal bins being

emptied into external bins), in comparison to existing background noise levels

during the proposed extended opening hours. The ENR advises that the expected breakout noise at the nearest sensitive receptors1, would not exceed

the existing background level2. The ENR notes that emptying of the bins

externally already occurs and that the noise is for a very limited duration. In conclusion, the ENR finds that the expected breakout and commercial noise

would likely have a low impact on nearby residents.

1 1m outside the first-floor window on the Brookfield Avenue facade of number 84 College Road; 1m outside the first-floor window of 82 College Road; and 1m outside the first-floor window of 1 Brookfield Avenue. 2 Measured LA90,1-hour background level.




7. The ENR does not assess the noise impact of the outdoor seating area. It is

proposed by the appellant, however, to cease use of this area no later than

2030h. Such a restriction could reasonably be secured through condition. The ENR is based on a range of assumptions, including that the majority of

windows and doors will remain closed and that only low-level background

music is played. Whilst there may be some future variability in meeting these

assumptions, the conservatory has only limited openings. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the technical conclusions of the

ENR are incorrect. As such, I am satisfied the ENR represents a reasonable

assessment of the noise impact of the proposals.

8. I acknowledge the strength of objection from interested parties and I do not

underestimate the concerns of those living near the appeal site, including regarding the potential for increased disturbance due to anti-social behaviour.

In addition to noise from the restaurant itself, the proposal would result in

increased disturbance from comings and goings and vehicular movements in the late evening. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not,

however, object to the proposal with regards to noise or disturbance. There is

no substantive evidence before me, such as a local police force objection, to

indicate that there are existing issues with anti-social behaviour in the surrounding area, or that a small restaurant would, individually or cumulatively

with existing uses, result in any such harm.

9. Whilst the surrounding area is predominantly residential, College Road is a

relatively busy thoroughfare including takeaways, a petrol station, a public

house and bus stop near to the appeal site. All of these existing uses contribute to late evening activity. Given the small scale of the premises and the existing

late evening activity in the surrounding area, I am not persuaded that the

proposal would result in an unacceptable or significant adverse effect, cumulative or otherwise, on the living conditions of local residents in terms of

noise or disturbance.

10. It is not uncommon for restaurants and hot food takeaways to be located close

to residential accommodation and for fumes and odours to be dealt with by

means of extraction equipment. I note that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer deems the extraction facilities acceptable and I have no substantive

evidence before me to the contrary.

11. Overall, therefore, I find the proposal in accordance with Policies ED2 part 8(c),

HC3 part 2(a) and EQ10 part 1(a) of the Sefton Council Local Plan (2017),

which taken together require, amongst other things, development to have no unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

Furthermore, the proposal accords with the Framework, including paragraph

180 which requires decisions to mitigate, and reduce to a minimum, potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from a new development and to avoid

noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life.

Other Matters

12. The proposal would result in increased demand for on-street parking in the

local area. On my site visit, I noted that on-street parking was available on

many roads within the surrounding area, including College Road. The Local

Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed use or extended hours. As such, and given the small scale of the premises, I am satisfied that the level of




current on-street parking would meet additional demand without detriment to

the safe and proper functioning of the highway.

13. I have no substantive evidence to suggest the restaurant would generate

unusual refuse, waste or rodent problems and there is other legislation to deal

with such issues if refuse is disposed of in an irresponsible manner. Furthermore, I do not accept that the visual appearance of the rear yard would

be detrimentally affected by this current proposal. Such issues should not be

considered inevitable consequences of the proposal but are rather a question of individual behaviour and appropriate management.

14. I have considered the argument that the grant of planning permission would

set a precedent for other similar developments. However, each application and

appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern

of this nature does not justify the dismissal of this appeal.

Conditions

15. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the requirements

of paragraph 55 of the Framework and with reference to the Planning Practice

Guidance. I find them to be reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of this case and note that the appellant has agreed to restrictions on live events,

entertainment and amplified music. I have amended some conditions in the

interests of clarity where necessary. Given the change of use has already occurred, it is not necessary to include the standard implementation condition.

It is necessary to define the plans in the interest of clarity. In the interest of

the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings, conditions have been

imposed in respect of opening hours, outdoor seating, sound insulation, music and entertainment noise.

Conclusion

16. For the above reasons, I allow the appeal subject to the conditions in the

attached Schedule.

S D Castle

INSPECTOR




Schedule of conditions attached to Appeal Decision

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/19/3224812 84 College Road, Crosby L23 0RP

1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following details and plans: Location Plan; Proposed Floor Plan Dwg no

18/45/02 rev A; Equipment Specification contained within the Odour Control Risk Assessment.

2) The sound insulation scheme as detailed in section 8.2 of the Soundtesting

Environmental Noise Report (14th January 2019) Ref: 11865 Rev 1, or another scheme of the same sound reduction performance, shall be fully installed within

six months of the date of this permission and shall be retained thereafter.

3) No live music, amplified music or live entertainment shall take place within

the premises or in external areas.

4) The premises shall not be open for customers outside the hours of 0900h to

1800h Monday to Wednesday and 0900h to 2200h Thursday to Sunday.

5) There shall be no outdoor seating outside of the hours of 0900h to 2030h

Monday to Sunday. At no time shall customer seating be provided within the

rear yard area shown on dwg no 18/45/02 rev A.



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2020

by R Morgan MCD MRTPI


Decision date: 1 April 2020


35 King Street, Southport PR8 1LG


• The appeal is made by Mr Mark Whelan against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2019/00132, dated 21 January 2019, was refused by notice

dated 16 October 2019. • The development proposed is change of use from a guest house (C1) to a multiple

occupation HMO (sui generis).

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a guest house (C1) to a multiple occupation HMO (sui generis) at 35 King

Street, Southport PR8 1LG, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref

DC/2019/00132, dated 21 January 2019, subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with approved plans: location plan; drawing no MW_008_2018_PLA (showing 6 units).

3) Prior to the approved HMO being occupied, the extension to the rear of

the property to be demolished shall be removed and the outdoor space

shown on the plans should be made available for its designated use. The space shall be then retained for such purpose throughout the lifetime of

the development.

4) Prior to the approved HMO being occupied, details of appropriate refuse storage and cycle parking shall be submitted to, and approved in writing

by, the local planning authority. The approved details shall be

implemented prior to the occupation of development and retained as such throughout the lifetime of the development.

5) A scheme of sound insulation to protect the occupiers of the adjoining

dwelling at 37 King Street from any additional noise shall be submitted

to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to

the occupation of the HMO.




Procedural Matter

2. Amended plans were submitted during the course of the application, but there

seems to have been some confusion as to which plan the Council’s decision

notice was based on. This has not been helped as different plans have been

given the same drawing numbers.

3. The appellant’s statement refers to a scheme for 7 units, as shown on drawing

number MW_004_2018_PLA. However, the Council has confirmed that the decision was based on plan ref MW_008_2018_PLA, which shows the number

of units as 6. Whilst this does not reflect the reference on the decision notice

to the proposal being for 8 units, it is consistent with the commentary in the planning officer’s report.

4. The appellant has requested that the appeal be determined either on the basis

of the proposal for 7 units, or on the original scheme which proposed 8 units.

5. The scheme for 8 units, shown on drawing ref a227_PLA_01, was the subject of

a previous application1 which was refused for a number of reasons, some of

which do not apply to the revised scheme for 6 units. The proposal for 8 units

was therefore materially different from the scheme which the decision notice relates to, and so to determine the appeal on that basis could prejudice the

Council.

6. In terms of considering whether to accept the proposal for 7 units, it is

necessary to apply the ‘Wheatcroft’ principles. The implications of an additional

unit for the Council’s requirement for amenity space, which was the sole reason for refusal, are clear. However, I do not have the Council’s views on other

elements of the proposal for 7 units so I do not know whether they would have

any other concerns about it, which might have been the subject of additional reasons for refusal. As such, to determine the appeal on the basis of the

scheme for 7 units could again prejudice the Council.

7. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the proposal for 6 units

as shown in drawing ref MW_008_2018_PLA.

Main Issue

8. The main issue is whether the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard

of living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to private

outdoor amenity space.

Reasons

9. The appeal property is a former guest house close to Southport town centre.

The property is at the end of a terrace of similar, traditional style properties,

and there are commercial uses at the rear and side. The property is currently vacant and in a state of some disrepair. The proposal would involve the

conversion of the property into a house in multiple occupation (HMO) with 6

bedsits over three floors.

10. The Council’s Flats and Houses in Multiple Occupation Supplementary Planning

Document 2018 (SPD) sets out detailed requirements for HMOs. For an HMO with 6 bedsits, an area of 50m2 outdoor amenity space should be provided.

This space should be accessible to all residents and be of high quality, so as to

1 Ref DC/2018/01573




ensure that occupiers have access to an area of private amenity space which

can be used for purposes including informal recreation, gardening, drying

clothes and socialising.

11. In this case, the only private outdoor amenity space is at the rear of the

property where there is a long, thin back yard, with a wooden door leading to an alley beyond. The proposal involves the removal of the existing single

storey extension which would result in an enlarged outdoor area, but this would

still only provide around 38m2, so would not meet the standard.

12. Paragraph 67 of the SPD explains that, in limited exceptional circumstances,

the Council may accept a lower amount of amenity space if it is not possible to meet these standards. Relevant factors in assessing whether a lower standard

is acceptable include the proposal being in easy walking distance of a local

centre, and the re-use of an otherwise vacant building which has wider significant community or regeneration benefits.

13. In this case, the appeal property is located a short walk from Southport town

centre where there are large areas of open space with public gardens, as well

as the beach. Opportunities for informal and formal recreation would therefore

be available close by for future occupiers.

14. The property is currently vacant and internally it is in need of significant

maintenance and repair. The site is in a fairly prominent location close to the junction of King Street and Portland Street, close to the Lord Street

Conservation Area. From the front, the building currently looks in reasonable

condition but without investment it will fall into decline, to the detriment of the

area.

15. The building was previously in use as a guest house but demand for such uses has declined and an alternative, non-residential use seems improbable. Given

the size and location of the property, its re-use as a single dwelling also seems

unlikely. The building has the potential to provide a good standard of internal

accommodation and could comfortably accommodate 6 bedsits.

16. Although the proposal would not meet the SPD standard for outdoor amenity space in full, by removing the existing extension a reasonable area of outside

space would be provided. This could be made into an attractive space which

would allow occupants to dry washing outside and store bikes and other

equipment. The plans also show space for outside dining to allow occupiers to socialise and relax outside.

17. The scheme would allow a vacant building to be brought back into use,

providing 6 units of accommodation in a location which is close to local

services, amenities and opportunities for outdoor recreation. These benefits

would outweigh the modest shortfall in the standard for amenity space.

18. I conclude that the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to private outdoor

amenity space. It would comply with Policy HC4 of the Sefton Local Plan 2017

which allows the conversion of buildings to HMOs where it would not cause

significant harm to the living conditions of the property or neighbouring properties.




Other Matters

19. Concerns have been raised about the proposed change of use to a HMO but the

Council has confirmed that the principle of the converting the building to such a

use would be acceptable in terms of its local planning policies, including an

Article 4 Direction which seeks to control HMOs and prevent over-concentration of such uses in the area.

20. I note the concerns raised about the impact of the proposal on investment in

the area. However, the proposal would itself allow investment in the area

through bringing back into use a vacant building. Conversely, allowing it to

remain vacant and in a state of disrepair could itself act as a deterrent to investment in the surrounding area.

21. Comments have been made suggesting that insufficient parking would be

provided as there is only space for off-road parking of two cars at the property.

However, the Council’s highways officer considered that this level of provision

was acceptable given the location of the site close to the town centre and public transport facilities. I have no reason to disagree with this view.

Conditions

22. In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty I

have imposed a condition requiring that development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. To ensure that future occupiers have

satisfactory living conditions, it is also necessary to impose a condition

requiring the demolition of the extension and the area made available as outdoor amenity space, prior to occupation.

23. A condition requiring details of refuse storage and cycle parking to be

submitted and implemented is also required, to ensure a satisfactory standard

of accommodation and in the interests of promoting sustainable transport.

24. The Council has suggested a condition requiring a scheme of sound proofing

and I agree that this is necessary to protect occupiers of the neighbouring

property from any noise disturbance.

Conclusion

25. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal is allowed subject to the

conditions.

R Morgan

INSPECTOR



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2020

by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI


Decision date: 27 March 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/Z/19/3243924

David Pluck (Betting Office) 19 Liverpool Road, Birkdale PR8 4AR

• The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent.

• The appeal is made by David Pluck (North West) Limited against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

• The application Ref DC/2019/01617, dated 27 August 2019, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2019.

• The advertisement proposed is described as “window graphics”.

Decision


Main Issue

2. The main issue is whether the proposal preserves or enhances the character or

appearance of the Birkdale Village Conservation Area.

Reasons

3. The appeal building is a commercial property of traditional architectural

detailing which is located within the Birkdale Village Conservation Area (BVCA).

4. In accordance with the duty imposed by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed

Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or

appearance of the conservation area. Moreover, paragraph 193 of the National

Planning Policy Framework states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight

should be given to the asset’s conservation.

5. The BVCA, immediately surrounding the appeal site, is characterised

predominantly by commercial properties with a large amount of signage

including traditional sign written fascia boards of proportions which fit in with the architectural character of the buildings. In my view the traditional styles of

signage visible on the historic built development positively contributes to the

significance of the BVCA in this commercial area.

6. The proposed graphics would not reflect the traditional style of signage in the

area and would not be in keeping with the traditional appearance of the appeal building. Internal wall, wires and cabling are visible through the windows,

nevertheless, the proposed graphics would appear as incongruous features that

detract from the appearance of the building and character of the BVCA.


Appeal Decision APP/M4320/Z/19/3243924


7. A previous Inspector had noted that the appeal property is not a prominent

building. However, the proposed graphics would be highly visible particularly

from immediate views and due to the style and size of the graphics, they would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area. Window graphics

are visible on other buildings in the area including TV/LED screens on nearby

bus stops. I do not find these other advertisements and graphics directly

comparable to the appeal proposal, particularly with regards to size, design and relationship with traditional buildings.

8. I have had regard to the appellants statement of case including reference to

previous appeal decisions1. The advertisements subject of these decisions1 are

mostly different to the proposal subject of this appeal. Appeal decision

APP/M4320/Z/18/3217680 did include window graphics and the Inspector found that they would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area.

Notwithstanding these previous appeal decisions1, I have determined this

appeal on its own merits.

9. I therefore find that the proposed window graphics would be harmful to the

visual amenity of the area and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the BVCA. The proposal would not be in accordance with

Policy EQ11 of the Local Plan for Sefton 2017 which seeks advertisements

displayed within heritage assets to be of particularly high quality, respecting the size, materials, proportions and detailing of the building.

10. The appellant has indicated that there has been significant investment in the

appeal building with it been brought back to life after being vacant and an

eyesore, and that the proposal has also been amended to mitigate its impacts.

The appellant also notes that other betting shops all over the country have similar advertisements. These matters however, would not outweigh the harm I

have identified in relation to the visual amenity of the surrounding area and the

BVCA.

Conclusion

11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Chris Baxter

INSPECTOR

1 Appeal reference numbers: APP/M4320/Z/17/3185227 and APP/M4320/Z/18/3217680



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2020

by Martin Whitehead LLB BSc(Hons) CEng MICE




2 and 2A Fishermans Close, Formby L37 1XX

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with

conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Fletcher against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2019/00965, dated 20 May 2019, was refused by notice dated

19 August 2019. • The application sought planning permission for Variation of Condition No 2 attached to

planning application DC/2017/01128 refused 20 October 2017 - allowed on appeal

19 April 2018 ref APP/M4320/W/18/3194662 - for alterations to the roof designs and elevations, without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/2018/01822, dated 19 November 2018.

• The condition in dispute is No 11 which states that: ‘The first floor en-suite and dressing room windows to Bedroom 2 in the north elevation of 'Fletcher House' shall not be glazed otherwise than with obscured glass and top opening and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.’

• The reason given for the condition is: ‘To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of 3 Fishermans Close.'

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for variation of

Condition No 2 attached to planning application DC/2017/01128 refused 20 October 2017 - allowed on appeal 19 April 2018 ref APP/M4320/W/18/3194662

- for alterations to the roof designs and elevations at 2 and 2A Fishermans

Close, Formby L37 1XX in accordance with the application Ref DC/2019/00965, dated 20 May 2019, without compliance with condition number 11 previously

imposed on planning permission Ref DC/2018/01822, dated 19 November 2018

and subject to the following conditions:

1) The development hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with

the following details and plans, so far as they are still subsisting and capable of taking effect:

PL7002 SL.01.Rev H - Site layout with street scene

PL7002 FH.FP.01 G - Fletcher House - floor plans PL7002 FH.EL.01.G - Fletcher House - elevations 01

PL7002 FH.EL.02.G - Fletcher House - elevations 02

PL7002 LH.FP.01.F - Latham House - floor plans

PL7002 LH.EL.01.G - Latham House - elevations PL7002 EW.01.Rev F - Landscaping & external works




2) The sustainable drainage scheme approved 26 June 2018

ref DC/2018/00899 shall be implemented and managed throughout its

lifetime.

3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any subsequent Order or statutory provision revoking or re-enacting the provisions of that

Order), no garages, outbuildings or other extensions to the dwellings

shall be erected.

4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any subsequent Order or statutory provision re-enacting or revoking the provisions of that

Order), no window or dormer window shall be added to the properties.

5) Any trees or plants that within a period of five years after planting, are

removed, die or become, in the opinion of the local planning authority,

seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced with others of a species, size and number as originally approved in the first available

planting season unless the local planning authority gives its written

consent to any variation.

Preliminary Matters

2. The appellant has made an application for costs against the Council. This

application is the subject of a separate Decision.

3. Whilst the address given for the permitted development is 2 Fishermans Close,

the address of the property to which the disputed condition relates is 2A

Fishermans Close. I have amended the site address accordingly to cover the whole of the development that has been implemented under this permission.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable and necessary to protect

the living conditions of the occupants of 3 Fishermans Close, with particular

regard to matters of privacy.

Reasons

5. The development permitted on appeal ref APP/M4320/W/18/3194662,

described as the ‘demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two

detached dwellings with garages and associated drives’ at 2 Fishermans Close,

was changed under planning permission ref DC/2018/01822. The Council has indicated that the development that has been implemented is that granted

under planning permission ref DC/2018/01822 and the appellant has referred

to the condition in dispute as that being attached to this permission. The resulting two dwellings are numbered 2, which is referred to as ‘Latham

House’, and 2A, which is referred to as ‘Fletcher House’ under the planning

conditions attached to this permission. The disputed condition refers to ‘Fletcher House’, which appears to me to have been substantially completed.

6. Condition 11 of planning permission ref DC/2018/01822 is very similar to

Condition 10 imposed on the development permitted on appeal, in that the

condition relates to the ‘first floor en-suite and dressing room windows to

Bedroom 2 in the north elevation’. Condition 2 of planning permission




ref DC/2018/01822 refers to amended plans from the development permitted

on appeal. These amended plans indicate that the en-suite and dressing room

to Bedroom 2 are to be provided. However, the internal layout of the bedroom has been altered to create a larger room without the dressing room and en-

suite. The Council has not indicated that this is unlawful, albeit that the

Council has suggested that it had initially been carried out without the

appropriate consent. The window that has been installed to Bedroom 2 is over 2 metres wide and one metre deep, being split into 4 units with 2 of them side

opening. It is the only window that serves that room. Whilst it is more likely

to be used for views than if it served a dressing room and en-suite, it is exceptional to expect such a window to be obscure glazed.

7. At my site visit I observed the views from the window. The adjacent garden

and side elevation of the single storey dwelling at 3 Fishermans Close are

screened by a thick hedge on the boundary. On the other side of this hedge is

a driveway between it and the side of the building. The layout of the appeal site is such that the window is set about 11 metres away from this boundary

hedge, separated from it by a paved area used for parking and turning

vehicles. There does not seem to me to be any likelihood that the hedge would

be removed, as it is located a sufficient distance from the windows of the appeal dwelling to ensure that it does not cause any significant harm to

daylight or sunlight reaching those windows. Even if it were reduced in height,

it would still offer some screening between the window and the adjacent property, and there is also a timber fence along this boundary. I therefore find

that the privacy at 3 Fishermans Close is not unacceptably compromised by

views from the window.

8. Policy HC4 of the Local Plan for Sefton, April 2017, has been referred to by the

Council but it specifically states that it relates to house extensions, houses in multiple occupation and flats. Strictly speaking, it does not apply to new

houses. However, as the permission could be considered to relate to an

alteration, I have taken it into consideration. Paragraph c iv seeks to ensure that alterations and extensions do not result in a significant loss of privacy for

neighbouring residents.

9. The New Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) June 2018 has

been referred to by the appellant. It indicates in paragraph 4.4 that, to

preserve the privacy of nearby residents’ gardens, new build houses should be located at least 10.5 metres away from the rear gardens of properties opposite.

The SPD is dated after the date of the original appeal decision, which is 19 April

2018, and therefore it would have been unlikely that it would have been taken

into account in that decision. As such, it represents a material change in circumstances from when the planning condition was first imposed. It is dated

after the Local Plan and I have been given limited information as to how it

relates to the development plan. However, the Council has indicated that its standards are applied when considering new housing and it gives an indication

of what the Council considers to be an acceptable separation distance to ensure

that the privacy of neighbouring residents would be adequately protected.

10. The Council has acknowledged that the interface distance between the window

and boundary of 3 Fishermans Close meets the minimum required distance in the SPD. In terms of point 4.1 of the SPD, regarding low density development,

it appears to me to refer to the requirement to respect the density, height,

layout and character of the surrounding area rather than matters of




overlooking. Therefore, I find that there is compliance with the SPD in respect

of recommended privacy distances.

Conclusions

11. I find that the development with the window that has been installed in

Bedroom 2 does not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of

the occupants of 3 Fishermans Close. Therefore, Condition 11 is neither

reasonable nor necessary to safeguard the amenities of occupiers of that property and the development complies with Local Plan Policy HC4, as it does

not result in a significant loss of privacy for neighbouring residents with the

window that has been installed in Bedroom 2.

12. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all relevant matters raised, I

conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition but retaining the relevant other

conditions from the previous permission that still apply.

Conditions

13. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council should the

appeal succeed. The guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance makes

clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under

section 73 should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless they have already been discharged. As I have

limited information before me about the status of the other conditions

imposed on the original planning permission, I shall impose all those suggested by the Council that I consider remain relevant, but I have

modified them where necessary. In the event that some have in fact been

discharged, that is a matter which can be addressed by the parties.

14. A condition referring to the plans is necessary to provide certainty to those

details that have not been discharged, and this should allow for the changes that have been carried out to the internal layout of Bedroom 2 that

the Council has indicated that it has subsequently approved. A condition

regarding sustainable drainage is necessary in the interests of flood prevention. Conditions to control permitted development are necessary to

protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. A condition

regarding landscaping is necessary to safeguard the character and

appearance of the area. For the reasons given, I have found that the condition suggested by the Council regarding the window to Bedroom 2 is

unnecessary.

M J Whitehead

INSPECTOR




by Felicity Thompson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI



Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/C/19/3238652

4 Litherland Road, Bootle L20 3B7

• 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 Ms Jan Clark against an enforcement notice issued by Sefton

Metropolitan Borough Council. • The enforcement notice was issued on 30 September 2019. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission

and within the last 4 (four) years the installation of an ATM and installation of a blue panel surrounding the ATM to the front elevation of the shop premises.

• The requirements of the notice are to remove the ATM and blue panel surrounding the ATM from the shop frontage and reinstate the shop front as shown on the photo

attached to the enforcement notice marked as APP 1. • The period for compliance with the requirements is two months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a) of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed, and the enforcement notice is upheld. Planning

permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under

section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

The appeal on ground (a) and the deemed planning application

2. The main issue is whether the ATM and blue surrounding panel preserves or

enhances the character or appearance of the Derby Park Conservation Area.

3. The appeal property is located within the Derby Park Conservation Area which

is defined in the Derby Park Conservation Area Appraisal as a Victorian urban

landscape which contains many fine buildings and much historic interest, which together, contribute to its special character and justify its designation. It is

stated that Bootle appears to have remained as a small village until the mid-

19th century at which time it was overlaid with a Victorian Town. The special

interest of the Conservation Area, as set out in the appraisal, lies in its history, representing the unique development of the settlement.

4. The appeal property is located in Character Zone 1 ‘Village Centre’ which

consists of small, mostly terraced, houses and some shops and is characterised

by its denser grain. The appeal property is a traditional two storey mid to late

19th century building identified in the appraisal as a building which retains original features, and which contributes positively to the area. It is a surviving

historic building which together with surrounding buildings, provides some




sense of 19th century Bootle Village and makes a positive contribution to the

significance of the Conservation Area.

5. The shopfront, prior to the installation of the ATM had two large display

windows, broken at the top with horizontal transom rails, above deep stall

risers, either side of a central recessed entrance. Whilst I understand it is not the original shopfront, it includes features which respect and reflect traditional

shopfront design.

6. The ATM is a modern feature readily apparent in public views. Its design and

form do not respect the architecture or traditional appearance of the building

and, its installation has resulted in the vertical division of a display window which has disrupted the symmetry that previously existed across the shopfront.

Consequently, the ATM and surrounding panel adversely affect the traditional

integrity of the appeal building and do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

7. The appellant has submitted proposed plans which include retaining the ATM

with no advertisement or illumination and reinstating the sill and glazing.

However, these alterations would not overcome the harm in respect of the

division of the display window and the modern appearance of the ATM.

8. Given the scale of the proposal within the context of the Conservation Area as

a whole, I consider the harm to be less than substantial. Nevertheless, I am mindful that in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)

paragraph 193 says great weight should be given to the conservation of a

designated heritage asset and paragraph 194 that any harm to such assets

should require clear and convincing justification.

9. Paragraph 196 states that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of such an asset, that harm should be weighed against

the proposal’s public benefits including, where appropriate, securing its

optimum viable use. This requires a balancing exercise of harm against the

public benefits of the proposal. In this case reference has been made to the benefits to the public of a free to use ATM and that it encourages people to visit

local shops and spend money, therefore maintaining and enhancing the vitality

and viability of the area.

10. The Council’s submission shows that there is a fee for transactions and that

there is a free to use ATM approximately 230m away and several in the nearby Strand Shopping Centre. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the

presence of the ATM makes it more likely that people will visit and spend

money in local shops. Consequently, these matters are of limited weight. That there have been no objections from residents is a neutral matter which does

not outweigh my finding of harm.

11. Overall, the public benefits do not outweigh the great weight that I am required

to attach to the heritage asset’s conservation. Accordingly, I conclude that the

development does not accord with the design and heritage protection aims of Policies EQ2, NH9 and NH12 of A Local Plan for Sefton Adopted April 2017. It

also fails to accord with national policy which seeks to conserve and enhance

the historic environment.




Conclusion

12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I

shall uphold the enforcement notice and refuse to grant planning permission on

the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990

Act as amended.

Felicity Thompson

INSPECTOR



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2020

by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI




52a Dowhills Road, Crosby, Liverpool L23 8SP


• The appeal is made by Paul Finnegan & Kevin Connolly against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

• The application Ref DC/2019/00612, dated 26 March 2019, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2019.

• The development proposed is erection of 2no. detached dwellings.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of

2no. detached dwellings at 52a Dowhills Road, Crosby, Liverpool L23 8SP in

accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/2019/00612 dated

26 March 2019, subject to the conditions attached in the schedule to this decision.

Main Issues

2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on trees and

woodland, and the effect of the development on the character and appearance

of the area.

Reasons

Effect on trees

3. The appeal site includes the existing two storey property and surrounding land.

From the evidence in front of me, it appears that the property has been

unoccupied for some time.

4. The area is predominately residential in nature, although there is a church

adjacent the site. The appeal site is located within the Merrilocks Plantation,

and as a woodland plantation, the trees on site are covered by a woodland Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

5. The appeal proposals seek the erection of two dwellings on site. From the

Council’s statement it is apparent that the demolition of the existing property

already has consent.

6. Policy EQ9 of the Sefton Local Plan (2017) (the LP) states that development

proposals must not result in unacceptable loss of, or damage to existing trees

or woodland or significant landscaping as a result of development, and that any trees lost as a result of the development be replaced on a 1:1 ratio, and where

appropriate a suitable landscape scheme should be included.




7. From my site visit, it is apparent that the existing trees on site are in various

states of health, and it is apparent that no effective management of the trees

has been in place for some time.

8. I note from the tree report that the trees are predominately Sycamore, and the

proposals would result in the loss of five trees. These are identified as being in poor or fair condition.

9. The Council have concerns that the extent of tree loss has not been correctly

identified as a bank of trees to the frontage that are predominately conifers

have not been taken into consideration, but some removal would need to take

place in order to facilitate an access. In addition, the appellant’s proposal to carry out ‘no-dig’ excavation would not be possible, leading to further losses.

The Council concludes that the development should not be uses as a method of

bringing about appropriate woodland management, and pressure would be brought for further tree removal due to the potential for overshadowing from

the remaining trees.

10. I have taken into consideration the tree report that has been submitted and I

am satisfied that the surveys, methodologies and subsequent

recommendations have been carried out by a competent specialist of suitable

experience and knowledge. The conifers identified by the Council are outside of the woodland TPO but are to be retained as part of the overall works. The

report also identifies replanting of replacement trees at a 1:1 ratio or better.

11. Overall, I find that the recommendations set out in the report and clear and

precise, identified the key site constraints and identified appropriate solutions.

This will assist in providing long term protection for the TPO and encourage its long-term retention, as well as retaining its long-term landscaped character of

the area.

12. As a result, I find that on this issue, the proposals are consistent with the aims

of Policy EQ9 of the LP where it relates to trees and landscaping as part of

development and Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as it relates to conserving and enhancing the natural

environment.

Design

13. Policy EQ2 of the LP states that, amongst other matters, development should

respond positively to character, local distinctiveness and the form of its

surroundings, and make a positive contribution through design, in terms of scale, height, form, massing, style, detailing, landscaping and use of materials.

14. From my site visit, it is apparent that there is no overall context in terms of the

design of housing within the locality, with a mix of styles, ages and designs.

The design and fenestration of the proposed dwellings would have a

contemporary character, with undivided panes of glass and a variety of sizes and proportions. Whilst this would not conform with the more orthodox

arrangements in some of the surrounding properties, there is a wide range of

window styles in the area. There is no repeated pattern of windows in the

surrounding properties, so the arrangement in the proposed dwellings would not upset any existing order in the street scene. Overall, I find that the

dwellings, given their size, siting and design, would not be an overly dominant

or incongruous feature.




15. Overall, I am satisfied that the scheme put forward would result in new

dwellings of well considered architecture which takes account of and respects

its setting in the area without being a pastiche of modern contemporary design.

16. In terms of development plan policy, I find that the proposal meets the

requirements of Policy EQ2 of the LP and the design aspects of the Framework. I find that the proposal meets the definition of sustainable development set out

in the Framework when considered as a whole. This accord with the

development plan and the Framework is not outweighed by any other consideration.

Other Matters

17. I have noted the concerns of the Council with regard to the provision of this

development creating pressure for other development proposals. However, I also note that other development proposals have previously been forwarded,

and this appeal has been determined on its own merits, as should any future

proposals that could be submitted to the Council.

18. I have also considered the comments of a nearby resident in relation to the

impact on the woodland trees. I have dealt with this issue as part of my assessment, and I am satisfied that the recommendations put forward within

the report would lead to long term benefits to the woodland as a whole.

Conditions

19. In relation to conditions, I have not imposed conditions 2 and 7 of the Council’s

suggested list as the information requested in the conditions has already been

supplied by the appellant and the implementation of the recommendations of

those reports would be covered by condition 6 in the schedule below.

20. Conditions 1 and 6 are standard conditions imposed in the interests of proper planning. Conditions 2 and 3 are imposed in the interests of highway safety.

Condition 4 is imposed to ensure that the materials of construction are suitable

in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality, whilst condition 5 is to

ensure the long-term protection of the woodland TPO and to retain an acceptable visual appearance.

Conclusion

21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Paul Cooper

INSPECTOR




SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2) No dwelling shall be occupied until a detailed scheme of highway works

together with a programme for their completion has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall

include details of the new vehicular/pedestrian access, pedestrian visibility splays and the relocation of the existing bus stop.

3) No dwelling shall be occupied until the means of vehicular access/pedestrian

access, pedestrian splays and the relocation of the bus stop have been

constructed.

4) No development shall commence above slab level until details of the

materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the

houses are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details.

5) Any tree that within a period of five years after planting, dies or, in the

opinion of the Local Planning Authority, becomes seriously damaged or

defective shall be replaced with another of the same species and size as originally approved in the next available planting season.

6) The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance

with the following drawings and reports set out below:

Site outlined in red as shown on Drawing 600-OS,

Drawing Numbers

600-1 600-2 600-3 600-4 600-5 600-6

600-7 600-8 600-9 600-10 600-11 600-12 600-13 600-14 600-15 Rev A 600-16 600-17

Tree protection plan Rev A July 2019

Arboricultural Method Statement dated 10th July 2019

Tree report Ref No TH/2019/01/07 Dated 7th January 2019

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Dated 29th March 2019

END OF SCHEDULE




by S R G Baird BA (Hons) MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 27 February 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/D/19/3241867

24 Poplar Avenue, Crosby, L23 2SU

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

• The appeal is made by Mr S Bolger against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

• The application Ref DC/2019/01810, dated 25 September 2019, was refused by notice dated 15 November 2019.

• The application sought planning permission for a single storey side and rear extensions, new dormers, enlarged porch, amended window positions and detailing, render to existing elevations, demolition of single storey plant room (part retrospective) without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DC/2019/00668, dated

31 May 2019. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development is hereby permitted

in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Site Outlined in red as shown on Drwg 1523 (003) 100 Rev 2 and Drwg No’s 1523.003 105 Rev 1 and 1523.003 Rev 4 and email correspondence confirming elevational treatment as dashed render to be painted white with reclaimed Welsh slate to the roof.

• The reason given for the condition is: For the avoidance of doubt.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed

Main Issue

2. Whether condition No. 2 is reasonable and necessary to preserve the character

or appearance of the Moor Park Conservation Area (CA).

Reasons

3. Most of the houses within this compact CA date from the end of the 19th and

early 20th century. Their design and finish reflect a strong Arts and Crafts

influence. The palette of materials, which contributes to the character and

appearance of the area appears to be to be brick, white/off-white painted render and render with timber framing. The significance of the white/off-white

colour palette to the character and appearance of this CA is reflected in the

imposition of an Article 4 Direction. The Direction removes, amongst other

things, the right to paint the exterior of any building where it fronts a highway. Moreover, the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document, seeks to

ensure that extensions and, by definition, their finish should be in keeping with

the surrounding area.


Appeal Decision APP/M4320/D/19/3241867


4. The top part of the pink rendered side and front elevations are visible over and,

in parts, through the boundary hedge and gate. Whilst the CA Appraisal

identifies this property as having neutral interest in the CA, that does not reduce the importance of ensuring that finishes harmonise with and are

sympathetic to the palette of materials and colours that contribute to the

character and appearance of this CA. The vibrant pink render is at odds with

the palette of colours that contribute to the character and appearance of this CA.

5. For the above reasons, the use of pink render fails to preserve the character

and appearance of this CA and conflicts with Policy NH12 of the Sefton Local

Plan, which requires that development preserves or enhances the character or

appearance of a CA. Accordingly, I conclude that condition 2 is reasonable and necessary and having taken all other matters into consideration, the appeal is

dismissed.

George Baird

Inspector



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 January 2020

by Sarah Manchester BSc MSc PhD MIEnvSc


Decision date: 18th February 2020


106 Cambridge Road, Southport PR9 9RZ


• The appeal is made by Mr Peter Mckeown (Inspire Initiative Ltd) against the decision of

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2018/01959, dated 26 October 2018, was refused by notice

dated 01 August 2019. • The development proposed is change of use from C3 “dwelling house” to a C2

“residential institution”. The proposal is to provide parenting support and assessments in a Residential Family Centre.

Decision


Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed change of use on the living

conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

Reasons

3. No 106 is a large 3 storey semi-detached dwelling in an area designated as

Primarily Residential in the Sefton Local Plan Adopted April 2017 (the LP). It is

set back from the road with a front garden and there are outbuildings and a

garden to the rear, accessed via a private driveway to the side of the property.

4. In May 2018, planning permission was refused, and the decision was upheld on

appeal1, for a change of use from a dwellinghouse to a residential family centre. The grounds for dismissal of the appeal related to harm to the living

conditions of the occupiers of the attached property No 108, with particular

regard to internal noise and disturbance.

5. The appeal proposal sought to overcome the reason the appeal was dismissed.

On the basis of the evidence, and from what I saw at the time of my visit, there do not appear to have been any significant changes in circumstance since

the time of the previous appeal. Therefore, I see no reason to disagree with the

previous Inspector’s findings in terms of the likely increase in activity at the appeal property and consequent impacts on the neighbouring occupiers.

1 Ref APP/M4320/W/18/3202427




6. The Internal Noise Assessment establishes the level of noise that would be

generated within the property and evaluates its impact on the occupiers of No

108. Based on a worst-case scenario, it concludes that a higher standard of sound insulation than is required to protect normal domestic uses would be

appropriate. I am satisfied that with the implementation of the recommended

internal noise mitigation measures, the proposal would not result in harm to

the internal living conditions of the occupiers of No 108, as a result of noise generated within the appeal property.

7. However, the likely considerable increase in activity at the site, which was

noted by the previous Inspector, would be not only within the property but also

around it, including in the rear garden and at the front of the property.

8. The proposal is for 5 mothers (the service users), collectively with between 5

and 7 babies. There would be 4 members of staff during the day and 2 during the overnight period. There would also be private and professional visitors to

the property. Many of the service users would be likely to be under the age of

18 and therefore children themselves. Moreover, they would be likely to have

complex issues, including learning difficulties and emotional problems. A typical length of stay would be 12 weeks, resulting in short-term and transient

occupation of the property.

9. The appeal property is suitable to be occupied by a large family. However, it is

unlikely that a single family would permanently be comprised of 4 adults, 5

young mothers and at least 5 babies under 6 months of age. Based on the nature of the proposal and the number of people involved, the change of use

would therefore be markedly dissimilar from normal family occupation.

10. The appellant is committed to avoiding adverse effects on neighbouring

residential occupiers. In this respect, the Statement of Purpose and the

Management Plan set out the terms of the assessment and the acceptable use of the property and behaviours of service users.

11. The predicted increase in vehicular movements would not be significant in the

context of Cambridge Road, which is a busy through road with a high volume of

traffic. Moreover, there would be relatively few vehicular movements between

20:00 and 08:00 hours. However, any vehicles arriving during the overnight period, including in response to emergencies and in exceptional circumstances,

would be likely to be disruptive. Furthermore, while unscheduled and out of

hours visitors would only be allowed into the property in exceptional circumstances, this would not prevent any such visitors that were trying to gain

entry to the property from disturbing the neighbouring occupiers.

12. There would be provision for cycle parking and 5 car parking spaces to the

front of the property, although I note that the plans illustrate 4 parking bays

adjacent to the shared boundary with No 108. Service users would not bring their own cars to the property and the spaces would therefore be available for

staff and visitors. However, while the property is in an accessible location and

staff would be encouraged to use sustainable forms of transport, there would

be nothing to prevent them driving to work. Moreover, the proposed vehicular movements include 3 daily trips where staff members would transport service

users. Therefore, it appears likely that the 6 staff would travel by car.

13. Vehicular activity associated with the proposal during the day would coincide

with times when neighbouring occupiers might reasonably be expected to be




away from their properties. However, there would be an intensification of

vehicular activity during the evenings, including around the curfew time and

during the staff changeover, when 6 vehicles would be manoeuvring in and out of the 4 parking spaces to the front of the property. While family occupation

would also be likely to result in increased activity during the mornings and

evenings, it would be unlikely to be concentrated over short periods of time or

involve such large number of vehicles.

14. It is proposed that visitor numbers, both private and professional, would be strictly limited to one per day. However, the Management Plan states that

sufficient time be allowed between visitor time slots to avoid unnecessary

crossover, which suggests that visitors would not be strictly limited.

Irrespective, it is not clear that a severe restriction on visitors would be practical or reasonable or that it could be enforced. Furthermore, it would not

prevent activity such as friends and family picking up and dropping off service

users at the front of the property.

15. Even allowing for times when they would go out into the community, it seems

likely that the majority of staff and service users would spend a greater proportion of their time at the property. Therefore, particularly during pleasant

weather and in the interests of health and wellbeing, there could be up to 5

young mothers and their babies and several members of staff in the rear garden at any one time. While crying babies would be taken inside, the regular

use of the garden by such a large number of people and babies would be likely

to contribute to cumulative adverse effects on neighbouring occupiers.

16. Disruptive behaviour by service users could jeopardise their assessments.

Nevertheless, given the high number of service users, their young age, complex issues and family backgrounds, it seems reasonably likely that a

proportion of placements would fail for reasons including disruptive and anti-

social behaviour. Moreover, while disturbance, noise and anti-social behaviour

would not be tolerated, there is a lack of clarify in respect of what would constitute unacceptable noise and disturbance, how it would be monitored or

actioned. In this respect, it would not be acceptable or reasonable to expect

nearby residents to monitor the scheme.

17. The individual occurrences of noise, including car doors slamming, would not

result in significant adverse noise levels. However, the Planning Practice Guidance sets out that the subjective nature of noise means that there is no

simple relationship between noise levels and the impacts on those affected. In

any case, I have a broad duty to consider the living conditions of surrounding residential occupiers, having regard to planning policy. In this respect, even if

the management plan could be implemented in full, the proposed change of

use and the associated noise and disturbance would be materially different to use of the property as a family dwellinghouse.

18. Therefore, the proposed change of use would result in harm to the living

conditions of nearby residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise and

disturbance. It would conflict with Policy EQ4 of the LP which requires

development to be appropriate to its location, taking into account the likely adverse impacts of noise on amenity and health and wellbeing, and avoiding

significant adverse effects on health and quality of life.




Other Matters

19. I accept that a proportion of residential family centres in England operate from

semi-detached and terraced properties. However, on the basis of the very

limited information before me, I cannot be certain that premises elsewhere are

directly comparable to the appeal scheme including in terms of the service offer or the users, the property or its relationship to nearby residential uses. Family

centres elsewhere do not therefore provide a justification for the proposal.

20. My attention has been drawn to an appeal for a change of use of a

dwellinghouse to a centre for children with emotional and behavioural issues2.

In that case, the Inspector took into account the particular circumstances of the case in coming to a conclusion that it would harm the living conditions of

neighbours. I agree that the 2 schemes are not identical. However, the service

users of the scheme before me would be likely to be children with complex, including emotional, issues and from problematic family backgrounds. In this

respect, there do appear to be similarities between the 2 schemes.

21. There are properties on Cambridge Road that are currently or were historically

in use as residential care homes. However, there is no substantive evidence to

demonstrate that they are directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

22. Even allowing for apparent discrepancies and similarities in the third party

representations, there are nevertheless a significant number of objections to the proposal. The small number of duplicate or erroneous representations do

not weigh in favour of the scheme.

Conclusion

23. I have found that the proposed change of use would conflict with the

development plan and there are no material considerations that would

outweigh that conflict. For this reason, the appeal should therefore be

dismissed.

Sarah Manchester

INSPECTOR

2 Ref APP/M4320/W/19/3231962


Appeals Received and Decisions Made. 1 for... · 2020-06-18 · Appeals received and decisions made...

Documents

Transcript of Appeals Received and Decisions Made. 1 for... · 2020-06-18 · Appeals received and decisions made...