appeal decisions - sefton · 2018. 10. 9. · appeals received and decisions made between 11...

Please note that copies of all appeal decisions are available on our website:

http://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-applications/

Contact Officer: Mr Steve Matthews 0345 140 0845 (Option 4)

Email: [email protected]

Appeals Received and Decisions Made

Appeals received and decisions made between 11 September 2018 and 01 October 2018

Appeal Decisions

DC/2018/00002 (APP/M4320/W/18/3204039)

151 Southbank Road Southport PR8 6LZ

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to a mixed use (A1 retail

and A4 micropub) new access ramp to existing access and

replacment storeDecision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:

Procedure: Written Representations

30/07/2018

24/09/2018

Dismissed

Reference:

DC/2018/00457 (APP/M4320/D/18/3202361)

11 Lonsdale Road Southport PR8 6NL

Prior approval submission for a proposed rear extension

projecting 4.80 metres from the rear wall of the original

dwellinghouse with a height of 3.00 metres at the eaves and

4.00 metres at the pitch (Valid 08/03/2018) Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:

Procedure: Householder Appeal

13/08/2018

21/09/2018

Dismissed

Reference:

DC/2017/00798 (APP/M4320/W/17/3187366)

54 Linacre Road Litherland Liverpool L21 6NT

Change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's

suites

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


26/04/2018

11/09/2018

Allowed

Reference:

EN/2017/00439 (APP/M4329/C/17/3187396)

Stockwell Mount 54 Linacre Road Litherland

Appeal against without planning permission the change of use

of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four

manager's suitesDecision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


26/04/2018

11/09/2018

Quashed

Reference:

New Appeals

DC/2018/00156 (APP/M4320/Z/18/3202986)

Spar 1-3 Green Lane Formby Liverpool L37 7DJ

Advertisement consent for the display of 2 No. non-illuminated

signs to the corner elevation (retrospective).

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


17/09/2018

Reference:

67 Windsor Road Southport PR9 9BX

Appeals received and decisions made between 11 September 2018 and 01 October 2018

DC/2018/00891 (APP/M4320/S/18/3208206)

Erection of a dormer extension to the rear of a dwellinghouse

including alteration of roof from hipped end to gable

Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


24/09/2018

Reference:

DC/2018/01239 (APP/M4320/D/18/3210090)

42 Hillsview Road Ainsdale Southport PR8 3PN

Erection of of a single storey extension to the side, a garage

to the opposite side of the dwellinghouse following the

demolition of existing garage (Retrospective application)Decision Date:

Decision:

Start Date:


24/09/2018

Reference:

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

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 September 2018

by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 24 September 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/18/3204039

151 Southbank Road, Southport, Merseyside PR8 6LZ

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr Ken Wilkins against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council.

The application Ref DC/2018/00002, dated 1 February 2018, was refused by notice

dated 26 April 2018.

The development proposed is a change of use from A1 retail (newsagent) to a mixed

use A1 retail and A4 micro pub to include outdoor seating area, installation of access

ramp and replacement of store.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The description of development set out above is taken from the planning

application form. Despite the description of development on the appeal form in section E, the description of development found on the decision notice more accurately reflects the development that was sought, and amended by the

appellant before the Council made their decision to refuse planning permission. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

3. As part of the appellant’s appeal submission, an amended plan was submitted (Ref: 1666/01 rev B, dated 15 May 2018). This plan changes the location of

the entrance and the off-street parking arrangements. Having regard to the Wheatcroft Principles1, the plan was not considered by the Council in their determination of the planning application. Nor has the plan been subject of

public consultation. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and a fresh planning application should usually be submitted to the

Council in the first instance. Thus, in the interests of fairness and natural justice, I consider that the Council and interested parties would be prejudiced by the consideration of the amended plan. My findings therefore relate to the

scheme that was determined by the Council, which omitted the outdoor seating area that was originally proposed.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with regards to noise and disturbance;

1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, P37]


Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/18/3204039

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

and (ii) the effect of the proposed change of use on the provision of facilities in

the local area.

Reasons

Living conditions

5. The appeal premise is a detached two storey property at the junction of Southbank Road and Falkland Road. The ground floor of the property is used

for the sale and delivery of newspapers and as a general grocery store between the hours of 06:30 to 19:00. Hard standing is in front of the property, which

offers space for several vehicles to park. The property’s first floor is used as a flat. To the north-west are three properties (Nos 153 and 155; No 157; and No 159 Southbank Road) that are occupied by commercial premises on the ground

floor and flats above. The surrounding area is largely characterised by residential properties.

6. Properties around the junction have front facing windows at ground and in some cases first floor. While bungalows at 182a, 182b and 184 Southbank Road; the detached property at 182 Southbank Road; and the semi-detached

pairing of 34 and 36 Falkland Road are set back, they face the proposed parking area and entrance door. Next to the site is 47 Falkland Road, which has

a two storey high bay window to the front serving a lounge and a bedroom. A low brick wall forms the boundary between No 47 and the parking area.

7. The proposed seating arrangement could mean that the micro pub could

accommodate around 20 people, but the appellant’s evidence states that its capacity would be for about 30 people. This higher figure would be a push

based on the size of the building. The premises would open from 06:00 to 20:00 for the sale of newspapers and so parcels can be picked up and dropped off. The micro pub would open during the hours of 10:00 and 22:00 for the

consumption of alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, crisps and nuts. No food would be prepared or served and amplified or live music does not form part of

the appeal scheme. The premises would be open seven days a week. Despite reference to the sale of coffee on or off site, the proposal would change the existing operation of the premises, in terms of the nature of its use and the

times at which it operates.

8. Southbank Road is particularly well used by vehicular traffic. While there is

also some pedestrian footfall this is not unusual for the area. Noise from passing traffic does influence the local noise environment. This is confirmed by the appellant’s Noise Assessment (NA), which measured existing noise levels

on 6 March 2018 (Tuesday) between the hours of 21:30 and 22:30. The NA remarks that traffic on Southbank Road was intermittent at this time, but that

it does influence what is otherwise a relatively low background noise level that further reduces after 22:00. This reflects the representations of residents who

explain that traffic does reduce during the evening.

9. Subject to a planning condition to improve the sound insulation performance of the ceiling and walls of the ground floor, the NA confirms that there would not

be an unacceptable impact to the occupants of the first floor flat of No 151. The NA also explains that nearby residential occupants would not be subject of

unacceptable impacts in terms of noise breakout from within the premises.

10. I recognise that a micro pub may attract a different type of clientele, and that




the appellant is looking to create a pleasant environment. Even so, the

potential number of people coming and going from the micro pub could bring very different effects than the current use, which operates when noise and

disturbance from comings and goings is generally accepted, and background noise levels are usually higher. The micro pub would be open during the day and into the evening at a later time than the hot food takeaway granted

planning permission at Nos 153 to 1552. People may visit the premises individually or in groups. There is a greater likelihood that people would visit in

the evenings, at weekends, and on bank holidays. The number of people who could be at the premises at any one time would result in comings and goings.

11. Residents are likely to notice the effects of these, whether they be on foot or

through the use of a vehicle, but they are unlikely to have a significant effect on their living conditions during the day and into the early evening throughout

the week. Even though the proposed closing time is not particularly late, the period before, during and after it is a more sensitive time of day when noise levels are lower. In this residential area, it is reasonable for residents to

expect peace and quiet at this time of day.

12. I would not expect every journey to the micro pub to be by car due to the

consumption of alcohol. However, some journeys would as not everyone would drink alcohol and people may be dropped off or picked up. Journeys on foot are also likely.

13. The ramped access to the premises would mean that persons coming and going, including those stepping outside to smoke would be near to No 47 and

the first floor flat of No 151 especially. There is therefore the potential for noise and disturbance from talking or shouting. Vehicles using the parking spaces would also result in noise and disturbance from manoeuvring, doors

banging, engines revving and music at a time later than the existing use. While the parking spaces may have historically been used, vehicle movements are

likely to be less frequent at this time of day compared to the proposed use. Added to this, there is the potential that residents around the junction could suffer significant effects from people making their way home at night, or from

people congregating, shouting or from the movement of vehicles.

14. While the Scarisbrick Bowling Club may be licensed until 23:00, have outdoor

seating, and not offer any off-street car parking provision, I do not know whether the club is used every day of the week. Also, some of the micro pubs referred to by the appellant are in a town or local centres, and I do not have

the full details or circumstances relating to the Hillside cases to be able to compare them to the appeal scheme’s surroundings.

15. Planning conditions are suggested by the main parties to minimise the effect of noise and disturbance. However, I am not satisfied that they would suitably

mitigate against noise and disturbance to the extent that residents would not be subject of significant harm to their living conditions due the potential number of people and the proposed entry arrangements.

16. For these reasons, I conclude, on this issue, that significant harm would be caused by the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring

residents, with regards to noise and disturbance. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with Policies HC3 and ED10 of A Local Plan for Sefton (LP);

2 Council Application Ref: DC/2017/01890




which jointly, among other things, seek to ensure that non-residential

development does not cause significant harm to local amenity.

17. While LP Policy ED2 is relied upon by the Council on this issue, for the reasons

that I explain in the second main issue, it is not relevant to the appeal scheme.

Provision of facilities

18. Notwithstanding my findings on the first main issue, for the purposes of the LP

Policy ED2, a shopping parade is defined as groupings of four or more consecutive retail units or four retail units in any six units.

19. Despite the planning permission granted at Nos 153 to 155, the hot food takeaway use has not yet started. Thus, I have considered the proposal in light of the circumstances as I found them at the time of my site visit. In

terms of the three units to the south-east, a health and beauty centre occupies Nos 153 to 155 (likely Sui Generis Use Class); a café (A3 Use Class) occupies

No 157; and a hairdresser (A1 Use Class) occupies No 159. When the appeal premises are considered as part of this row of four properties, it is not the only retail use in the row or in the wider area. In any event, the row of properties

does not form a shopping parade based on the definition in LP Policy ED2.

20. I conclude on this issue that despite the proposed change of use to a mixed

retail and micro pub (A1 and A4 Use Classes), there is no conflict with LP Policy ED2. The proposal would in any event retain a retail element.

Other matters

21. Although issues are raised about anti-social behaviour, litter and violence, there is no substantive evidence before me to support these points relating to

the area in which the premises would operate. The proposal would provide off-street car parking, and there are no restrictions on either road. Residential properties generally have their own off-street car parking provision. The speed

limit is 20 mph and there is good visibility on the lit roads of oncoming traffic and pedestrians using the footways. I do not consider that highway safety

would be compromised by the proposal.

22. The appellant engaged with the Council at pre-application, nevertheless the Council is not bound by this advice in their consideration of the proposal before

them having viewed the site and heard views for and against the scheme. I note there has been support for the proposal, and an alternative scheme has

been drafted, but I have determined the appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations have indicated otherwise.

Conclusion

23. I recognise that the appeal scheme aims to prevent the premises becoming vacant, and redress the financial viability of the existing retail use. In this

regard, the proposal would be beneficial to the local economy, and it would widen the range of uses in the area. However, these matters do not outweigh

the harm that I have identified to residents living conditions.

24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Andrew McGlone

INSPECTOR



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018

by Katie McDonald MSc MRTPI



Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/D/18/3202361 11 Lonsdale Road, Southport PR8 6NL


against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of The

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as

amended).

The appeal is made by Mr J Stafford against the decision of Sefton Council.

The application Ref DC/2018/00457, dated 7 March 2018, was refused by notice dated

19 April 2018.

The development proposed is a single storey rear extension.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issue

2. Whether the proposal is permitted development under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order).

Reasons

3. Development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order if the

enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse.

4. The proposed extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling, being the side wall of the two storey original outrigger.

A.1 (j) excludes the enlarged part from being permitted if it extends beyond the side wall of the house and has a width greater than half the width of the house. The whole of the proposed rear extension must be considered and as

this extension would be the full width of the house, it would not comply.

5. Consequently, the proposed extension is not permitted under the above Order.

As the proposal does not constitute permitted development there is no need to consider the amenity of the neighbours or planning policy.

Conclusion

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

Katie McDonald

INSPECTOR


The Planning Inspectorate

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 5 September 2018

by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State


Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396 Land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT as shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against an enforcement notice issued by

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The enforcement notice was issued on 25 September 2017. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the change of use of the

property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites. • The requirements of the notice are to cease the use of the premises as serviced

apartments and manager's suites. • The period for compliance with the requirements is 56 days. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (the Act).

Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT • The appeal Is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal Is made by Mr Kamran Armani against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, was refused by notice dated

7 July 2017. • The development proposed is the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4

manager's suites.

Decisions

Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396

1. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting the sub-heading "enforcement notice - operational developmenrand replacing it with "enforcement notice - material change of use" and adding "it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years" at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice. Subject to these corrections, the appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the change of use of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites on the land shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice at land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT, subject to the following condition:

ht

in c

Appeal Decisions APP/M4320/C/17/3187396, APP/M4320/W/17/3187366

(i) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with drawing No LPL 02 LCO2 Site Plan, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366

2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites at 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: LPL 02 LCO2 Location Plan; LPL 02 LCO2 Site Plan; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Lower Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed First Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Second Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Mezzanine Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation North as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation East as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation South as Proposed and LPL 02 CD21 Elevation West as Proposed.

(H) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with approved plans, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Procedural Matters and the Notice

3. The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 24 July 2018 (the Framework). I afforded the main parties an opportunity to make comments in respect of the Framework and its relevance to the appeal. Whilst no comments were received from the main parties, I have nonetheless taken the Framework into account as part of the consideration of the ground (a) deemed planning application and the S78 planning appeal.

4. In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council's refusal notice rather than from the planning application form as this accurately reflects the proposed development.

5. In terms of Appeal A, the enforcement notice includes the sub-heading "enforcement notice — operational development". Furthermore, it does not refer to the breach of planning control occurring within either a four or ten year period. However, it is clear that the enforcement notice relates to a material

VSt_ciithwvw.gov.u1s. inSRP.CtOrdtP 2


change in the use of the property. The appellant describes the unauthorised development as serviced apartments "that allow for short and long stay customers whilst providing all the amenities a hotel room would. This can be in the form of room service, cleaning, bar facilities etc. These rooms will not cater for customers to live permanently like that found in HMO's". The enforcement appeal is made solely on ground (a) of Section 174(2) of the Act. On this basis, I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused to any party by correcting the notice in so far as deleting the aforementioned sub-heading and replacing it with "enforcement notice - material change of use" and adding "it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years" at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice.

Site and Main Issue

6. The reasons for serving the enforcement notice and the reasons for the refusal of planning permission are the same. Consequently, the main issue in respect of both Appeal A and Appeal B is the effect of the use of the appeal property upon the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding buildings in terms of noise and disturbance, comings and goings and on-street car parking demand.

7. The appeal property was previously in use as a public house known as Stockwell Mount: according to the Council this was its last lawful use. It is a three storey building on the corner of Linacre Road and Hapsford Road. The area is predominantly residential in character and the appeal site falls within a designated "Primarily Residential Area" in the Sefton Local Plan 2017 (LP). Appeal A and Appeal B relate to use of the property as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites. In respect of Appeal B, an eight space car park would be provided to the front of the property.

Noise and disturbance

8. There is no doubt that the breach of planning control and the section 78 appeal proposal relate to a more intensive use of the property in terms of residential accommodation when compared to the lawful use of the property as a public house on the ground floor with a hotel use on the two upper floors'. However, and in the context of the historic and lawful use of the property, coupled with the separation distances to the nearest residential properties and the location of the main entrance to the building, I do not consider that use of the property as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager's suites has resulted in a material increase in comings and goings from a pedestrian or vehicular movement point of view.

9. On my site visit, I was able to see that the appeal site is located on the corner of a busy road (i.e. Linacre Road) and where background noise levels from vehicular traffic are relatively high. It is also in an area where pedestrian activity is relatively high owing to the proximity of Home Bargains on the opposite side of Linacre Road and the use of the nearby pedestrian crossing. Whilst the area is predominantly residential in character, it cannot be said that the building falls within an area where levels of noise and activity are very low.

10. The Council comments that there would be comings and goings at the appeal property during unsociable hours. I am not clear why the Council say that this would be the case. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the

The Council has referred to approved plans for planning permission 5/1996/0692

v. 'n ectorate 3


occupiers of the apartments would enter and leave the site during unsociable hours. Of course this may happen sometimes, but that would be the case for any number of residential properties in the area. Furthermore, I have no objective evidence before me to suggest that there have been any anti-social issues in the locality or that any reported issues are directly associated with the appeal development. In addition, I note that the property was previously used as a public house and so would have generated comings and goings including some activity at night.

11. On balance, and for the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development has not resulted in a significant increase in noise and disturbance for residents. Whilst I acknowledge that my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did not notice significant pedestrian or vehicular activity associated with the appeal property. In reaching my conclusion on this matter, I also note the comments made by the occupier of a property which is very close to the appeal building, who states that "although I do not agree with people changing the use of a building before they have planning permission, I would like to say that I have not heard any noise whatsoever from Trivelles Seaforth". The development therefore accords with the amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and paragraph 127 of the Framework.

On-street car parking demand

12. I note that the Highway Authority was consulted as part of the determination of the planning application (Appeal B). In such a response the Highway Authority commented that "the site is accessible to public transport and bus stops on Linacre Road within easy walking distance providing access to both local and more distant locations". The Highway Authority raise no concern in respect of matters of highway safety, but comment that "whilst there is some limited unrestricted on-street car parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, there is concern that the limited off-street car parking provision proposed could result in additional demand for on-street parking in what is primarily a residential area'

13. I note that there is space to the front of the property to enable eight cars to park off the highway and that the plans associated with the Section 78 appeal proposal show five secure bicycle parking spaces and three motorcycle parking spaces. Whilst my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did notice that there was quite a lot of available on-street car parking space on nearby surrounding roads including on Hapsford Road, Palmerston Drive and Penrhyn Drive. There was no evidence of high levels of on-street car parking demand in the area.

14. Whilst the Planning Committee members were fully entitled to make a contrary decision to the officer recommendation to approve planning permission, in respect of car parking issues the Council's appeal statement simply states "as there is a limited amount of on-street parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, it is likely that customer parking in these streets will cause loss of amenity for residents". The property is already in use as serviced apartments. Had there been a car parking issue, I do not doubt that the Council would have been able to provide objective evidence in the form of car parking surveys and/or photographic evidence. Such evidence has not been forthcoming and the Council's case seems to be based on 'likely" impact which

ov k m nspectorate 4


I do not consider to be reasonably substantiated. The Council's concerns certainly do not reflect what I was able to see on my site visit.

15. Whilst I note the concern raised by the Highway Authority about on-street car parking, such a concern has not been substantiated with specific evidence. Indeed, I note that the officer report considered by Planning Committee made this very point. Given the previous use of the building, coupled with what appears to be a highly accessible site and what I was able to see on my site visit (i.e. spare on-street car parking capacity), the evidence before me does not suggest that the development gives rise to on-street car parking problems for the local community. Subject to conditions relating to the permanent provision of marked out on-site car parking spaces/manoeuvring space and bicycle and motorcycle parking provision, I conclude that the development would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon levels of on-street car parking demand in the locality. On this basis, the development accords with the car parking and amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and the Framework.

Conditions

16. Whilst the property is in use as 23 serviced apartments and four manager's suites, I was able to see on my site visit that the existing development did not fully reflect the proposed plans in so far that a single storey side addition to the building to facilitate access to the rear for the building for the parking of motorcycles had not been removed. For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of certainty, I shall attach a planning condition relating to the accompanying plans.

17. In respect of Appeals A and B, in the interests of ensuring efficient and effective use of the land for car parking/manoeuvring purposes, and to limit the number of vehicles parked on the surrounding highways, it is necessary that the frontage of the property is permanently marked out and made available for the parking of eight vehicles. In the interests of environmental sustainability, and to encourage more trips to be undertaken by more sustainable modes of transport, it is necessary that the aforementioned planning condition also includes the provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities. In order to comply with the requirement to provide motorcycle spaces to the rear, it would be necessary to remove part of the single storey side addition to the building.

Conclusions

Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396

18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on ground (a) and planning permission will be granted. The enforcement notice will therefore be quashed.

hops://www.gov.uk/planning-7ispeCCQrate 5


Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366

19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account representations made by other interested parties including the signed petition objecting to the proposal. None of the comments made by objectors to the proposal outweigh my overall conclusion on the main issue.

.71artrey

INSPECTOR

i.qov k/ n In ns torate 6


Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 5 September 2018

by D Hartley BA (Hons) MTP MBA MRTPI



Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396

Land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT as shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice

The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against an enforcement notice issued by

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council.

The enforcement notice was issued on 25 September 2017.

The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is the change of use of the

property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s suites.

The requirements of the notice are to cease the use of the premises as serviced

apartments and manager’s suites.

The period for compliance with the requirements is 56 days.

The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2) (a) of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (the Act).

Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT


against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr Kamran Armani against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan

Borough Council.

The application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, was refused by notice dated

7 July 2017.

The development proposed is the change of use to 23 serviced apartments and 4

manager’s suites.

Decisions

Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396

1. It is directed that the enforcement notice be corrected by deleting the sub-

heading “enforcement notice – operational development” and replacing it with “enforcement notice – material change of use” and adding “it appears that the

breach of planning control took place within the last ten years” at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice. Subject to these corrections, the appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Planning permission is granted on the

application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the change of

use of the property into 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s suites on the land shown hatched black on the plan attached to the notice at land and buildings at Trivelles Anfield, 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT, subject to

the following condition:




(i) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle

parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in

accordance with drawing No LPL 02 LC02 Site Plan, the approved use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and

available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this

condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366

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

to 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager’s suites at 54 Linacre Road, Litherland L21 6NT in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/2017/00798, dated 3 May 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to

the following conditions:

(i) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with

the following approved plans: LPL 02 LC02 Location Plan; LPL 02 LC02 Site Plan; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Lower Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Ground Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed First Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Second

Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Proposed Mezzanine Floor; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation North as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation East as Proposed; LPL 02 CD21 Elevation

South as Proposed and LPL 02 CD21 Elevation West as Proposed.

(ii) Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision the areas for vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring have been laid out, demarcated, levelled,

surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans and bicycle and motorcycle parking provided in accordance with approved plans, the approved

use of the site shall cease. The vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas and bicycle and motorcycle parking facilities shall be permanently retained and available for their specific uses. In the event of a legal challenge

to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be

suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Procedural Matters and the Notice

3. The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 24 July 2018 (the

Framework). I afforded the main parties an opportunity to make comments in respect of the Framework and its relevance to the appeal. Whilst no comments

were received from the main parties, I have nonetheless taken the Framework into account as part of the consideration of the ground (a) deemed planning

application and the S78 planning appeal.

4. In respect of Appeal B, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s refusal notice rather than from the planning application form as this

accurately reflects the proposed development.

5. In terms of Appeal A, the enforcement notice includes the sub-heading

“enforcement notice – operational development”. Furthermore, it does not refer to the breach of planning control occurring within either a four or ten year period. However, it is clear that the enforcement notice relates to a material




change in the use of the property. The appellant describes the unauthorised

development as serviced apartments “that allow for short and long stay customers whilst providing all the amenities a hotel room would. This can be in

the form of room service, cleaning, bar facilities etc. These rooms will not cater for customers to live permanently like that found in HMO’s”. The enforcement appeal is made solely on ground (a) of Section 174(2) of the Act.

On this basis, I am satisfied that no injustice would be caused to any party by correcting the notice in so far as deleting the aforementioned sub-heading and

replacing it with “enforcement notice – material change of use” and adding “it appears that the breach of planning control took place within the last ten years” at the start of paragraph 4 of the notice.

Site and Main Issue

6. The reasons for serving the enforcement notice and the reasons for the refusal

of planning permission are the same. Consequently, the main issue in respect of both Appeal A and Appeal B is the effect of the use of the appeal property upon the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding buildings in terms of

noise and disturbance, comings and goings and on-street car parking demand.

7. The appeal property was previously in use as a public house known as

Stockwell Mount: according to the Council this was its last lawful use. It is a three storey building on the corner of Linacre Road and Hapsford Road. The area is predominantly residential in character and the appeal site falls within a

designated “Primarily Residential Area” in the Sefton Local Plan 2017 (LP). Appeal A and Appeal B relate to use of the property as 23 serviced apartments

and 4 manager’s suites. In respect of Appeal B, an eight space car park would be provided to the front of the property.

Noise and disturbance

8. There is no doubt that the breach of planning control and the section 78 appeal proposal relate to a more intensive use of the property in terms of residential

accommodation when compared to the lawful use of the property as a public house on the ground floor with a hotel use on the two upper floors1. However, and in the context of the historic and lawful use of the property, coupled with

the separation distances to the nearest residential properties and the location of the main entrance to the building, I do not consider that use of the property

as 23 serviced apartments and 4 manager’s suites has resulted in a material increase in comings and goings from a pedestrian or vehicular movement point of view.

9. On my site visit, I was able to see that the appeal site is located on the corner of a busy road (i.e. Linacre Road) and where background noise levels from

vehicular traffic are relatively high. It is also in an area where pedestrian activity is relatively high owing to the proximity of Home Bargains on the

opposite side of Linacre Road and the use of the nearby pedestrian crossing. Whilst the area is predominantly residential in character, it cannot be said that the building falls within an area where levels of noise and activity are very low.

10. The Council comments that there would be comings and goings at the appeal property during unsociable hours. I am not clear why the Council say that this

would be the case. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the

1 The Council has referred to approved plans for planning permission S/1996/0692




occupiers of the apartments would enter and leave the site during unsociable

hours. Of course this may happen sometimes, but that would be the case for any number of residential properties in the area. Furthermore, I have no

objective evidence before me to suggest that there have been any anti-social issues in the locality or that any reported issues are directly associated with the appeal development. In addition, I note that the property was previously used

as a public house and so would have generated comings and goings including some activity at night.

11. On balance, and for the collective reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development has not resulted in a significant increase in noise and disturbance for residents. Whilst I acknowledge that my site visit was only a snap shot in

time, I did not notice significant pedestrian or vehicular activity associated with the appeal property. In reaching my conclusion on this matter, I also note the

comments made by the occupier of No 1 Palmerston Drive, a property which is very close to the appeal building, who states that “although I do not agree with people changing the use of a building before they have planning permission, I

would like to say that I have not heard any noise whatsoever from Trivelles Seaforth”. The development therefore accords with the amenity aims of

Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and paragraph 127 of the Framework.

On-street car parking demand

12. I note that the Highway Authority was consulted as part of the determination of

the planning application (Appeal B). In such a response the Highway Authority commented that “the site is accessible to public transport and bus stops on

Linacre Road within easy walking distance providing access to both local and more distant locations”. The Highway Authority raise no concern in respect of matters of highway safety, but comment that “whilst there is some limited

unrestricted on-street car parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, there is concern that the limited off-street car parking provision

proposed could result in additional demand for on-street parking in what is primarily a residential area”.

13. I note that there is space to the front of the property to enable eight cars to

park off the highway and that the plans associated with the Section 78 appeal proposal show five secure bicycle parking spaces and three motorcycle parking

spaces. Whilst my site visit was only a snap shot in time, I did notice that there was quite a lot of available on-street car parking space on nearby surrounding roads including on Hapsford Road, Palmerston Drive and Penrhyn

Drive. There was no evidence of high levels of on-street car parking demand in the area.

14. Whilst the Planning Committee members were fully entitled to make a contrary decision to the officer recommendation to approve planning permission, in

respect of car parking issues the Council’s appeal statement simply states “as there is a limited amount of on-street parking available on Hapsford Road and Palmerston Drive, it is likely that customer parking in these streets will cause

loss of amenity for residents”. The property is already in use as serviced apartments. Had there been a car parking issue, I do not doubt that the

Council would have been able to provide objective evidence in the form of car parking surveys and/or photographic evidence. Such evidence has not been forthcoming and the Council’s case seems to be based on “likely” impact which




I do not consider to be reasonably substantiated. The Council’s concerns

certainly do not reflect what I was able to see on my site visit.

15. Whilst I note the concern raised by the Highway Authority about on-street car

parking, such a concern has not been substantiated with specific evidence. Indeed, I note that the officer report considered by Planning Committee made this very point. Given the previous use of the building, coupled with what

appears to be a highly accessible site and what I was able to see on my site visit (i.e. spare on-street car parking capacity), the evidence before me does

not suggest that the development gives rise to on-street car parking problems for the local community. Subject to conditions relating to the permanent provision of marked out on-site car parking spaces/manoeuvring space and

bicycle and motorcycle parking provision, I conclude that the development would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon levels of on-street car

parking demand in the locality. On this basis, the development accords with the car parking and amenity aims of Policies HC3 and EQ2 of the LP and the Framework.

Conditions

16. Whilst the property is in use as 23 serviced apartments and four manager’s

suites, I was able to see on my site visit that the existing development did not fully reflect the proposed plans in so far that a single storey side addition to the building to facilitate access to the rear for the building for the parking of

motorcycles had not been removed. For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of certainty, I shall attach a planning condition relating to the

accompanying plans.

17. In respect of Appeals A and B, in the interests of ensuring efficient and effective use of the land for car parking/manoeuvring purposes, and to limit the

number of vehicles parked on the surrounding highways, it is necessary that the frontage of the property is permanently marked out and made available for

the parking of eight vehicles. In the interests of environmental sustainability, and to encourage more trips to be undertaken by more sustainable modes of transport, it is necessary that the aforementioned planning condition also

includes the provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities. In order to comply with the requirement to provide motorcycle spaces to the rear, it would

be necessary to remove part of the single storey side addition to the building.

Conclusions

Appeal A: APP/M4320/C/17/3187396

18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on

ground (a) and planning permission will be granted. The enforcement notice will therefore be quashed.




Appeal B: APP/M4320/W/17/3187366

19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. In reaching this decision, I have taken into account representations made by

other interested parties including the signed petition objecting to the proposal. None of the comments made by objectors to the proposal outweigh my overall conclusion on the main issue.

D Hartley

INSPECTOR


appeal decisions - sefton · 2018. 10. 9. · appeals received and decisions made between 11...

Documents