Date Of Meeting: 22nd July 2009 Title of Report: TOWN AND ...modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s5870/Appeals Committee Repo…escape to the rear N/2008/0875 - 2100473 18 Avondale

APPENDIX Committee: PLANNING Date Of Meeting: 22nd July 2009 Title of Report: TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 APPEALS Report of: A Wallis Planning and Economic Regeneration Director Case Officer: Telephone 0151 934 4616 This report contains

Yes

No

Confidential information

Exempt information by virtue of paragraph(s) ……… of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972

Is the decision on this report DELEGATED?

Purpose of Report: To advise Members of the current situation with regard to appeals. Attached is a list of new appeals, enforcement appeals, developments on existing appeals and copies of appeal decisions received from the Planning Inspectorate. Recommendation(s): That the contents of this report be noted. Corporate Objective Monitoring

Impact Corporate Objective Positiv

e Neutral

Negative

1 Creating A Learning Community 2 Creating Safe Communities 3 Jobs & Prosperity 4 Improving Health & Well Being 5 Environmental Sustainability 6 Creating Inclusive Communities 7 Improving The Quality Of Council Services &

Strengthening Local Democracy

Financial Implications None. Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report None. List of Background Papers relied upon in the preparation of this report Correspondence received from the Planning Inspectorate.

SEFTON COUNCIL Page 1 N:\Appeals\COMMITTEE REPORTS\CMMTTE JULY 09\cttee_report front sheet.doc

Appeals Received and Decisions Made

From 10 June 2009 to 10 July 2009

Decision Date: 29 June 2009

Decision: Dismissed Lodged Date: 12 January 2009Appeal Type: Written

Lodged Date: 07 July 2009

Decision Date: Decision:

Appeal Type: Written Installation of a dormer to the front of the dwellinghouse (resubmission of N/2007/1255 refused 22/02/2008)

N/2009/0047 - APP/M4320/A/09/2108012/WF

9 Garstang Road, Southport

Lodged Date: 16 June 2009

Decision Date: Decision:

Appeal Type: Public Application for Lawful Development Certificate for use of the land in connection with a dairy business involving the parking and manoeuvring of cars and commercial vehicles, storage of plant and equipment, storage of out of service milk floats and storage of other dairy related items

S/2009/0215 - 2104157 & 2106013 & 2106091

Mortons Dairies Kenyons Lane, Lydiate

New Appeals

Lodged Date: 23 March 2009


Decision: Dismissed

Appeal Type: Written Change of use of first floor from a flat to day nursery use, variation of Condition 3 attached to planning approval N/2004/0467 to increase the nursery places from 26 to 42 and the construction of a fire escape to the rear

N/2008/0875 - 2100473 18 Avondale Road, Southport

33 & 34 Litherland Park, Litherland S/2008/0519 - 2093934 Conversion of no. 33 to form 4 no. self-contained apartments, no. 34 to form 3 no. self-contained apartments, erection of 2 blocks of two storey semi-detached properties, layout of vehicular access and landscaping.



Decision: Dismissed

Appeal Type: Written Erection of a two storey extension at the side of the dwellinghouse

S/2008/0809 - 2097412 9 Millbank Lane, Maghull



Decision: Allowed

Appeal Type: Written Retention of a two-storey building in use as a dwellinghouse

N/2008/0782 - 2100065 76 Haig Avenue, Southport

Decisions

60 Merrilocks Road, Blundellsands S/2009/0005 - 2104068 Appeal Type: Written

Lodged Date: 25 June 2009Erection of a two storey block containing 2 no. self-contained duplex apartments to the rear of the premises

Decision:

Decision Date:

Car Park West Street, Southport Appeal Type: Written N/2009/0081 - APP/M4320/A/09/2108007/NWF

Lodged Date: 07 July 2009 Retrospective Application for metal railings and access gates to the perimeter of the car park

Decision:

Decision Date:

New Enforcement Appeals

56 Bushbys Lane, Formby Appeal Type: Hearing Lodged Date: 03 June 2009 CLB/ENFO301 - APP/M4320/A/09/2099544/NWF

Tree house in property gardens Decision: Decision Date:

Enforcement Appeal Decisions

76 Haig Avenue, Southport CLB/ENFO290 - APP/M4320/A/09/2100105 Appeal Type: Informal

Lodged Date: 11 May 2009 Decision: WITHDRAWN Decision Date: 03 July 2009

Retention of a two-storey building in use as a dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 17 June 2009

by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP

MRTPI

The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

� 0117 372 6372

email:[email protected]

ov.uk

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 22 June 2009

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/A/09/2100065

76 Haig Avenue, Southport PR8 6JY

• 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 Paul Fane against the decision of the Council of the

Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. • The application (Ref: N/2008/0782), dated 27 August 2008, was refused by notice

dated 19 December 2008.

• The development proposed is the erection of a detached garage with residential accommodation above as an ancillary building.

Decision

1. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the erection of a detached

garage with residential accommodation above as an ancillary building at 76

Haig Avenue, Southport PR8 6JY in accordance with the terms of the

application (Ref: N/2008/0782), dated 27 August 2008, and the plans

submitted therewith, subject to the following condition:

1) The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than

for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling at 76 Haig

Avenue.

Main issues

2. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are:

- Whether the proposal would result in the creation of a new dwelling.

- The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed

residential accommodation with regard to outlook and private

amenity space.

- The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwelling at

76 Haig Avenue and the neighbouring dwelling at no. 78.

Reasons

3. The appeal concerns a detached building, which has already been built, and is

located at the end of the rear garden of the semi-detached dwelling at 76 Haig

Avenue. At first floor level the building contains all the internal amenities

necessary for independent occupation such as a shower room/WC, kitchen,

bedrooms and dining area and is occupied by relatives of the Appellant. The

Council suggests that the permitted extension to the side of no. 76 would result

in limited or no access to the proposal. I saw at my site visit that the new

building would have to be reached through the extended dwelling. The new

accommodation does not have a defined curtilage so that it is dependent on the

Appeal Decision APP/M4320/A/09/2100065

2

host dwelling for both access and garden space. Notwithstanding the internal

facilities these factors indicate that the building is being occupied on an

ancillary basis and that is what is being sought in the planning application. A

condition could be imposed requiring the building to be used on an ancillary

basis to the associated dwelling. This would ensure that a new dwelling is not

created.

4. The main bedroom in the proposed building has a window facing towards the

rear of the dwelling at no. 76. The other two bedrooms are purely served by

rooflights. There are three windows in the rear elevation lighting the kitchen

and dining area. Taken as a whole I consider that these openings provide an

acceptable outlook for this ancillary building, especially as the rear windows

face towards playing fields giving relatively open views.

5. I see no reason why separate private amenity areas should need to be defined

given the ancillary use condition that I shall impose and the desire of the

Appellant to share the space. I also consider that the area available is

sufficient to serve the occupiers of the host dwelling and new ancillary

accommodation.

6. For these reasons I conclude that the living conditions of the occupiers of the

proposed residential accommodation are acceptable and the proposal has not

resulted in sub-standard accommodation.

7. The single window facing towards the rear of the host dwelling serves a

bedroom and is sufficiently distant to prevent undue overlooking, especially

given the ancillary status. Any overlooking of the house at no. 78 is at a

reasonably oblique angle and has not resulted in an undue loss of privacy.

Movements to and from the new building, as well as its occupation, are under

the control of the Appellant and in this context it is difficult to see how undue

noise and disturbance is likely to result.

8. I conclude that the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings at 76 and

78 Haig Avenue have not been harmed.

9. Unitary Development Plan policy H10 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning

Guidance in Sefton, New Housing Development are of limited relevance given

the nature of the proposal. However, in any event there is no conflict with the

underlying purposes. I note the appeal decisions referred to by the Council.

However, I do not have the full details of these cases and must determine this

appeal strictly on its own merits.

10. Given the absence of harm that I have found and taking account of all other

matters raised, I therefore determine that the appeal succeeds. The Council

has suggested a condition requiring three trees to be planted. Given the

modest scale of the building and the absence of views from the street I do not

consider this to be necessary. Apart from the condition referred to above no

others are justified.

M Evans

INSPECTOR

Appeal Decision


by Jim Metcalf BSc DipTP MRTPI


Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

� 0117 372 6372


ov.uk





9 Mill Bank Lane, Maghull, Liverpool, Merseyside, L31 9AT


against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms Carmel Clark-O’Neil against the decision of Sefton Council.

• The application (Ref S/2008/0809), dated 12 October 2008, was refused by notice dated 2 December 2008.

• The development proposed is the erection of two storey extension at side of an existing

dwelling house.

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issues

2. I consider the main issues are whether :-

• the conservatory is inappropriate development in the Green Belt,

• whether there would be any other harm to the Green Belt and

• whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is

clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very

special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Reasons

3. No 9 Mill Bank Lane is a semi-detached house located in open countryside. It

has generous gardens to the side and rear and has previously been extended at

the rear. The single storey extension involved about 71m³ of additional volume

to the original house. The original house measured about 234m³ and was

consequently increased by about 30% following the extension.

4. ‘Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts’ (PPG2) explains that the limited

extension of an existing dwelling need not be inappropriate development

provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above

the size of the original building. The Council’s Supplementary Planning

Guidance ‘House Extensions’ (SPG) states that in the Green Belt, properties

should only be extended by up to one third of their original volume. In general

terms the existing rear extension represents the limit allowed for under the

Council’s policy.

5. The proposed two storey side extension would measure about 2.8m wide and

be 5.3m deep. Overall it would add about 92m³ and would result in a property

about 69% larger than the original dwelling. In this context it is clear that


2

adding the two storey side extension to the existing rear extension would result

in a building significantly larger, and disproportionate to the size of the original

property. Consequently the extension would be inappropriate development

that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and in conflict with PPG2, Policy

GBC1 of the Sefton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and SPG.

6. No 9 Mill Bank Lane is a modest semi-detached house. The side extension

would be more than half the width of the existing house and would create a

double fronted property. It would be about 7m high at the ridge. An extension

of that size, in the position proposed, would be clearly seen from Mill Bank Lane

as a relatively large addition to the property. PPG2 makes it clear that the

most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. The extension would

reduce and consequently harm the openness of the area around the house and

the Green Belt in conflict with PPG2 and UDP Policy GBC1.

7. The appellant explains four members of her family live at No 9 Mill Bank Lane.

An occupational therapist at the Council explains that two of the residents are

registered as disabled and a third has hearing and visual impairments. The

fourth resident is the appellant who is carer for the other three. It is clear to

me that the accommodation is unsatisfactory for the family currently living

there in these circumstances. The extension would provide bedroom

accommodation for the two registered disabled residents with bathroom and

access designed to suit their needs. Such accommodation cannot be provided

within the existing house and a disabled facility grant has been awarded to

extend the property.

8. The appellant also points out that other houses nearby and similar to No 9 Mill

Bank Lane have been extended in the way she proposes. However, I am not

aware of the planning history of these other houses and must judge the current

case on its own merits.

9. I sympathise with the needs of the family and appreciate that the extension

would provide more satisfactory living arrangements for them. However,

planning permissions relate to land and property not the current occupiers. In

such a situation the personal circumstances of residents will seldom outweigh

general planning considerations. The extension would be inappropriate

development and cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Although the

extension would clearly benefit the appellant’s family these considerations do

not clearly outweigh the significant harm arising from its inappropriateness, and

the harm it would cause to the openness of the Green Belt. Very special

circumstances to justify the development do not exist and the development

would be contrary to PPG2, UDP Policy GBC1 and SPG. Accordingly I dismiss

the appeal.

Jim Metcalf

INSPECTOR

Appeal Decision


by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP

MRTPI


Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

� 0117 372 6372


ov.uk





18 Avondale Road, Southport PR9 0ND


against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Chatterbox Day Nursery against the decision of the Council of

the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. • The application (Ref: N/2008/0875), dated 9 December 2008, was refused by notice

dated 13 February 2009.

• The development proposed is indicated on the planning application form as being to increase day places by 16 places in addition to the existing 26 places and install an

escape stair to the rear elevation.

Preliminary Matters

1. The proposal includes the use of the first floor as part of the nursery, the

construction of a fire escape and the intention to increase the numbers of

children to a total of 42. A condition currently limits the numbers of children to

26. Given the replacement of the flat at first floor level with the nursery use

and the operational development involved, I shall treat the proposal as an

application for full planning permission rather than one seeking to vary a

condition, while bearing in mind the numbers of children proposed.

Decision


Main issues

3. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on

the living conditions of the occupiers of the surrounding dwellings and the

implications for highway safety.

Reasons

4. The appeal concerns a semi-detached building with an existing ground floor

nursery and upper floors with a permitted residential use. The rear staircase

would allow overlooking towards the dwelling to the north-east where there are

two windows in the side elevation. However, provided the staircase was only

used for emergency purposes there would be no undue loss of privacy. Noise

arising from activity within the building could be addressed by a condition

requiring sound insulation in the wall dividing the first floor from the flat at the

same level in the attached building at no. 16. Given the relatively busy nature

of the road additional comings and goings would not result in unacceptable

disturbance at the front.


2

5. However, the rear garden which provides an external play space for the

nursery is surrounded by residential properties. Although the dwellings to the

north-east are vacant there is no guarantee that this would necessarily remain

the case. The Appellant explains that the numbers of children playing outside

at any one time would not change. However, it seems to me that the

additional children proposed mean that there would be a greater number and

frequency of outside play sessions. Given the natural exuberance of young

children this would result in unacceptable additional noise. Surrounding

occupiers would have the enjoyment of their rear gardens unacceptably

diminished and may also experience adverse effects within their

accommodation if windows were open.

6. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions

of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. This would be contrary to the aims of

Unitary Development Plan policy H10.

7. There is a hardstanding to the front of the site which allows off road parking for

customers dropping children off. Parents are likely to deliver their children at

staggered times limiting the potential for vehicular conflict. Additional vehicles

manoeuvring into and out of this area would be unlikely to compromise

highway safety given the existing movements in relation to the premises and

those at nearby dwellings. The relatively low vehicle speeds in this location

would also limit the potential for accidents. I note that the Council’s highways

officers have raised no objections and despite the on-street parking on both

sides of the road, I conclude that the proposal would not be detrimental to the

interest of highway safety.

8. The Appellant argues that there is a need for more nursery places in the area.

However, the expansion of the nursery in this case would be at the undue

expense of the quality of the residential environment. I conclude that the need

for nursery places and the absence of harm in relation to highway safety are

outweighed by the adverse effect that would occur in relation to living

conditions.

9. I therefore determine, taking account of all other matters raised, that the

appeal fails.

M Evans

INSPECTOR

Appeal Decision


by Jim Metcalf BSc DipTP MRTPI


Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

� 0117 372 6372


ov.uk





33 Litherland Park, Liverpool, L21 9HP


against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Gareth Millar against the decision of Sefton Council.

• The application (Ref S/2008/0519), dated 5 June 2008, was refused by notice dated 16 October 2008.

• The development proposed is the conversion of two existing houses into self contained

apartments and four new build houses.

Decision


Procedural Matter

2. On the planning application form the name of the applicant is given as Mr

Gareth Millar. Elsewhere in the appeal papers Mr Greg Williams is described as

appellant with Mr Millar as agent. However, I have used the name given on the

application form as submitted to the Council. Secondly, the address above is

that given on the application form but it is clear that the site of the proposed

development also extends to include No 34 Litherland Park.

Main issues

3. I consider that the main issues are the effect of the development on the living

conditions of residents in adjoining property, including Nos 33 and 34 Litherland

Park, with regard to outlook and privacy and the adequacy of the living

conditions of residents in the proposed houses.

Reasons

4. Positioning new houses in the rear gardens of Nos 33 and 34 Litherland Park

would not reflect the existing character of the area where generally all the

houses front the street. Furthermore the appellant acknowledges that

minimum distances, set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance

‘New Housing Development’ (SPG) would not be achieved in the relationship

between the new and existing houses. Specifically the houses behind No 33

Litherland Park would have, at the nearest, windows about 13m from windows

in the back wall of the existing house. This compares with the SPG standard of

21m. The house behind No 34 Litherland Park would be, at its closest, 9m

away from facing windows compared with the standard of 12m. Facing

windows in the new houses would be between 8.5m and 18m apart compared

with the SPG standard of 21m.


2

5. The close proximity of the existing and proposed houses would have two

effects. Firstly, the outlook from habitable rooms of both existing and proposed

houses would be dominated by the overbearing presence of unreasonably close

house walls. Secondly, habitable space within the houses would be readily

overlooked from windows close by prejudicing the privacy of residents.

6. Although the overlooking would be mitigated to a degree by the angles at

which the new and existing houses would sit in relation to each other this would

not be sufficient to offset the detrimental effect of the close relationship.

Overall, the living conditions of residents in Nos 33 and 34 Litherland Park and

in the new houses would be unsatisfactory with regard to outlook and privacy

because of the positioning of the new development contrary to Policies CS3,

DQ1 and H10 of the Sefton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and SPG.

7. The appellant submits that the four new houses would each have gardens in

excess of 70m², and thereby in compliance with SPG. However, two of the

plots would have, according to the plan ref 11509-004, an ‘area of amenity’

amounting in total to 70.46 m² and 73.6 m² respectively and made up of small

areas of ground at the side and rear of the houses. These would not, in my

opinion, form a satisfactory ‘garden’ for three bedroom houses. This reinforces

my concerns about the lack of space at the rear of the existing houses to

accommodate four new houses, meaning that the living conditions of residents

in the proposed houses with strictly limited garden space would be poor and

contrary to UDP Policy DQ1 and SPG.

8. The development would be on brownfield land, in accordance with current

policies for locating new housing, and the Council have relaxed their housing

restraint policy so that it is not an issue in this case. I also appreciate the

appellants desire to improve the appearance and use of Nos 33 and 34

Litherland Park as part of the development. However, these factors do not

outweigh my concerns regarding the lack of space at the rear of the existing

houses to accommodate four new houses, in an area characterised by frontage

houses on relatively spacious plots, and leading to inadequate living conditions

for residents in both the new and existing houses.

Jim Metcalf

INSPECTOR

Documents

Date Of Meeting: 22nd July 2009 Title of Report: TOWN AND ...modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s5870/Appeals Committee Repo…escape to the rear N/2008/0875 - 2100473 18 Avondale