PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT ON PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED

Best Value Performance Indicator 204

Members are aware that this performance indicator no longer applied in terms of the national or local suite of planning indicators. However it is reported as a barometer to show appeal decision results on a rolling basis and to identify any trends.

Planning Appeals: The number of planning appeal decisions allowed against the authority’s decision to refuse planning applications, as a percentage of the number of planning appeals against refusals of planning applications.

National PI Target: 	Less than 40% of appeals upheld
Local PI Target:	Less than 35% of appeals upheld

Current Performance 	    %

APPLICATION No:	09/57273/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mrs F Jamil

APPEAL SITE:	178 Langworthy Road Salford M6 5PP    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use of ground floor from shop to shop for the sale of hot food together with the installation of a fume extraction system

WARD:	Langworthy

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	11 March 2010

On the 19th June 2009 planning permission was refused by Salford City Council for the change of use of 178 Langworthy Road from a vacant A1 retail unit to a hot food takeaway (class A5). The application was refused on the basis that – 

The proposed use of this property as a hot food takeaway (class A5) would lead to an over-concentration of hot food takeaways in the Langworthy Road Neighbourhood Centre and as such it would result in an unacceptable reduction in the vitality and viability of the centre.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy S4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

The applicant exercised their right of appeal. The appellant did not consider that there was an over-concentration of hot food takeaways within the Langworthy Road Neighbourhood Centre. They also contended that instead of having a negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the centre the proposal would help to improve the vitality and viability of the centre, as it would bring a vacant unit back into use in a centre that has a high level of vacancies.

The inspector noted the number of vacant units with in the Langworthy Neighbourhood Centre. Having regard to this and the fact that there would only be 5 hot food takeaway uses within the centre the Inspector stated that the proposal would result in an over-concentration of hot food uses. The Inspector also noted that the proposal would not restrict the ability of other traders to locate within the centre. They therefore concluded that having regard to these facts and the range of goods and services available within the centre that the introduction of a hot food takeaway at 178 Langworthy Road would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the Langworthy Neighbourhood Centre. The appeal was therefore upheld. 

 

APPLICATION No:	09/57663/HH

APPELLANT:	Mr K Davids

APPEAL SITE:	1 Chatsworth Road Worsley M28 2NU    

PROPOSAL:	Retention of conservatory to the side and retention of 1.2m high boundary railings and 2.2m high gates

WARD:	Worsley

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld - Varied

DECIDED ON:	13 March 2010

On 2nd July 2009 planning permission was approved by Salford City Council for the retention of a conservatory to the side and retention of 1.2m high boundary railings and 2.2m high gates at 1 Chatsworth Road, Worsley. The application was approved subject to the following conditions:

•	The gates and railings hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour black within three months of the date of this permission and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

•	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission. Such a scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted along the boundary, adjacent to the rear of the railings hereby approved. The approved scheme shall be carried out in full within 12 months of the date of this permission unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter.

The applicants appealed the conditions attached to the decision.

The inspector considered that the main issues are whether the conditions are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the need to protect the character and appearance of the area.

Condition 1
The inspector acknowledged that Chatsworth Road and the surrounding streets display a significant degree of architectural variety and that the choice of colour, materials of construction and form of front boundary treatments is also individual.

He considered that it is this variety that typifies the character and appearance of the area and results in a mature and visually interesting residential environment.

The inspector concluded that condition 1 is neither necessary nor reasonable and that there is no need to control the colour of the gates and railings in this case.

Condition 2 
The inspector acknowledged that the character of the area is one of dwellings in extensive grounds and of varying size and design. Front boundary treatments typically comprise high railings or walls combined with dense planting as well as numerous mature garden trees and trees along the sides of the road.

The inspector considered that the relationship of the front elevation of the appeal site is closer to the public realm than that of most nearby dwellings and as such it does justify a less dominant form of front boundary treatment. Despite this he considered that the hard landscaping of the front garden is out of keeping with the general character and appearance of the area and that without the implementation of a soft landscaping condition the gates and railings represent an unduly prominent and visually intrusive feature in the street scene which are causing material harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to policy DES1.
 
The inspector concluded that condition 2 is both necessary and reasonable.

The inspector therefore allowed the appeal and has varied the permission accordingly.

APPLICATION No:	09/57855/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mr M Lee

APPEAL SITE:	112 Vicars Hall Lane Worsley M28 1HT    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a dwelling house

WARD:	Boothstown And Ellenbrook

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	18 March 2010

On 28th August 2009 planning permission was refused by Salford City Council for the erection of a dwelling house at 112 Vicars Hall Lane for the following reasons:

•	The development would fail to provide the occupiers of the new dwelling with a satisfactory living environment in terms of aspect contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

•	The proposed development would be an unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its design, size, siting and cramped form.

•	Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change in accordance with Policy DP9 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West and policy ST14 of the adopted UDP.

The applicants appealed the decision.

The inspector considered that the main issues were the effect of the development upon the appearance and character of the area and the effect upon the living conditions of future occupiers of the dwelling.

The inspector considered that the general scale, massing and design of the proposed dwelling would respect the neighbouring properties. He acknowledged that the site and surroundings have a distinctive local character whereby dwellings are generally set back from the road behind front and side gardens.

The main front elevation of the proposed bungalow would be set back only some 2.4m-3.2m from the pavement and the proposed porch would be little more than 1m from the pavement. The bungalow would be set back behind a shallow front garden and well forward of the building line formed by the side elevations of the adjacent properties. As a result the inspector considered that the new dwelling would appear highly obtrusive and visually dominating within the street scene contrary to policy DES1 of the UDP.

The inspector considered that the limited area of outdoor amenity space would be sufficient to meet the needs of the future residents.

However he considered that although it has not been shown that the level of daylight would be inadequate, the level of outlook from the kitchen/dining room and bathroom windows in the rear elevation (which would look out onto the shared boundary fence at a distance of approximately 2m-2.9m) would be particularly restricted below the level that could be reasonably expected in a modern bungalow in this kind of residential context.

The inspector concluded that the living conditions for future occupiers would fall below acceptable standards contrary to policy DES7 of the UPD.

In terms of the third reason for refusal the inspector considered that the site is within a sustainable location within walking distance of the Boothstown Local Centre with public transport providing access to the wider range of facilities in Walkden Centre and beyond. In addition he considered that appropriate conditions could be imposed on any planning consent to require that the proposed dwelling included suitable measures for saving energy and limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases.

The inspector considered the benefits of the scheme. I.e. provision of additional housing accommodation on previously developed land within a sustainable location. However the inspector considered that this or any other matters raised are sufficient individually or in combination to outweigh the objections to the proposed scheme.

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	09/57841/COU

APPELLANT:	Mrs Karen Sami

APPEAL SITE:	3 Mather Road Eccles M30 0WQ    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop (A1) selling sandwiches, breakfasts and pizza, to hot food takeaway (A5) including new extraction system to rear

WARD:	Eccles

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	18 March 2010

On the 17.09.2009 an application for the change of use from shop (A1) selling sandwiches, breakfasts and pizza, to hot food takeaway (A5) including new extraction system to rear, was refused contrary to recommendation by members of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel. The reason for refusal was as follows:

1. The proposed development will, by reason of noise odours and visual intrusion arising from the location of the flue, result in a significant loss of amenity to nearby residential occupiers contrary to policies DES7 and EN17 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Hot Food Takeaways.

The Inspector carried out an accompanied site visit on the 24th February 2010. The Inspector noted that the premises were a vacant shop with unrestricted opening hours in close proximity to Liverpool Road which is a busy thoroughfare, with a variety of commercial uses at street level remaining open into the evening, and as such causing a noticeable level of background noise and activity. However it was also noted that Mather Road is a quieter residential street, and that residential properties exist in close proximity to the site, above Eccles Fish Bar. He concluded that the location of the appeal premises within a side road so close to a number of residential properties means that it is necessary to impose a condition restricting hours of operation to 8am to 8.30pm on Mondays to Saturdays with no opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays

The Inspector regarded that the ‘modern ventilation system’ would be visible from flats at 1 Mather Road, it would be limited in size, traditional in its design and neither overbearing nor dominant when viewed from these properties. The Inspector considered that, subject to the proposed ventilation system being installed and properly maintained, there would be no significant impact upon the amenities of residents by reason of smells, fumes or noise. He concluded that this matter could be suitably dealt with by condition.

Overall, the Inspector concluded that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions relating to hours of operation, the ventilation system and the provision of a litter bin. The appeal was upheld on this basis.