Title: On the 15th of October 2008 planning permission for the for the change of use of no
Author: IT Services
Last saved by: csecdcunningham
Company: Urban Vision Partnership Ltd

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT ON PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED

Best Value Performance Indicator 204

Planning Appeals: The number of planning appeal decisions allowed against the authority’s decision to refuse on 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 	30 %

APPLICATION No:	07/54585/ADV

APPELLANT:	T Whitfield

APPEAL SITE:	Oxcheek Farm Cutnook Lane Irlam M44 5NA   

PROPOSAL:	Retention of one-48 sheet and one-96 sheet advertisement panels

WARD:	Irlam

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	25 March 2009

The appeal relates to an application which was refused on the 15^th May 2007 for the retention of one 48-sheet and one 96-sheet advertisement panels.

The application was refused on the grounds that:

1)	The proposed advertisements by virtue of their size and siting would injure the visual amenity of the area and would not maintain the openness of the greenbelt contrary to the provisions of Policies DEV2and EN1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and PPG19

2)	The proposed advertisements would cause an unnecessary distraction to drivers on the M62 motorway to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to the provisions of Policy DEV2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and PPG19 (Outdoor Advertisements).

Prior to the determination of the appeal one of the signboards was withdrawn from consideration and the inspector therefore only considered the 96 sheet signboard.

The inspector agreed with the Council’s position that although the signboard is positioned in front of and is proportionate to the stable block behind, this does not render its appearance in the countryside more acceptable. The Inspector did not support the applicant’s contention that it serves a useful purpose in screening what is described by the appellant as a ‘hotchpotch’ of farm buildings. The Inspector considered that Farm complexes such as Oxcheek Farm are an established part of the rural scene, and to accept that they should be screened by advertisements would encourage a proliferation of hoardings. PPG19 states unequivocally that advertising is out of place in the countryside and should not normally be allowed and therefore to allow the signboard would be directly contrary to PPG19.

The Insepector noted the appellants argument that the Countryside in this location had already been subject to harm by the presence of the motorway, but did not regard this as justification for compounding such harm by allowing the advertisement.

In relation to the second reason for refusal –highway safety the Council is advised by the Highways Agency. The Inspector agreed with the Highways Agency that this is a highly trafficked stretch of the motorway network but the statistics provided showed no cluster of accidents that might be expected over the several years that the advertisement had been displayed. The Inspector acknowledged that drivers involved in accidents were unlikely to cite distraction as a cause, the lack of a cluster strongly suggests that a lack of frankness was not a significant factor in this instance.

The Inspector concluded that he did not consider the advertisements would cause harm to public safety, however did consider that the advertisement would be detrimental to the interests of amenity and that there was no consideration sufficient to outweigh this harm. The appeal was duly dismissed by the Inspector on this basis.

APPLICATION No:	08/56073/FUL

APPELLANT:	Host Palace Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	The Bell Tower 357 Chapel Street Salford M3 5JY   

PROPOSAL:	Partial demolition, refurbishment and conversion of existing building and erection of a five storey rear extension to provide 22 apartments on the upper floors with retail/leisure uses (A1, A3, A4, D1 and D2) at ground floor and basement level.

WARD:	Ordsall

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	13 March 2009

The application for change of use to apartments and a five storey extension was refused under delegated powers on 10 April 2008, for the following reasons:

The proposed development would, by reason of its piecemeal nature, have a negative effect on the regeneration of the wider area, contrary to policy MX1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The design of the proposed extensions is of insufficient quality which would have a detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding area, contrary to policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Design Supplementary Planning Document: Shaping Salford.

The proposed development would, in the absence of any Development Framework for the area, represent incremental development that would unacceptably hamper and reduce the development options for the wider area contrary to policy DEV6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and to policies SC1 and SC2 of the Salford Central Planning Guidance.

The inspector considered that the main issues were the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of both the existing building and the surrounding area, and on regeneration and the future use of adjoining land.

The inspector considered that the proposed extensions to the building would be excessively dominant and that there would be an absence of any meaningful relationship between the contemporary design of the extension and the original Bell Tower building. In his view the resultant building would be a disordered composition presented in a hotchpotch of unrelated design styles.

With regard to the regeneration argument the Inspector considered that whether or not the scheme would obstruct comprehensive regeneration was at the heart of the appeal.  He considered that even though the Salford Central Development Framework was not formally adopted it was clear that both the Council and the URC were committed to the Framework’s vision and have the financial resources to deliver it.  Regardless of the historic failures to comprehensively regenerate the area, there seemed, to the Inspector, every possibility that the proposals in the Framework would be carried out.  The proposed development would introduce numerous apartment windows on all five floors of the new building.  This would result in the design principles upon which the regeneration proposals are founded being undermined and their effectiveness in creating a high quality urban environment would be eroded.

The inspector concluded that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the future use on adjoining land and the regeneration of the wider area.

Both parties made awards for costs and the Inspector found that the appeal had been made unnecessarily and that it obviously had no reasonable prospect of success, given the extent to which the scheme conflicts with development plan policies and important regeneration aims.  He concluded that the Council had demonstrated that there has been unreasonable behaviour on the appellant’s behalf resulting in unnecessary expense.  He therefore ordered that the appellant shall pay to the City Council the full costs of the appeal proceedings.

APPLICATION No:	08/56458/FUL

APPELLANT:	Peel Investments (North) Limited

APPEAL SITE:	Land Opposite 2 To 10 Vicars Hall Lane Worsley    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 15 dwellings together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular access (Re-submission of planning application 07/55785/FUL)

WARD:	Boothstown And Ellenbrook

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal withdrawn

DECIDED ON:	23 March 2009

APPLICATION No:	08/56833/HH

APPELLANT:	Mr Stockley

APPEAL SITE:	9 And 11 Wardley Hall Lane Worsley M28 2RL    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey extensions to rear of both properties

WARD:	Panel Members

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	12 March 2009

On 6^th October 2008 planning permission was refused by Salford City Council for the erection of two storey extensions to the rear of numbers 9 and 11 Wardley Hall Lane for the following reasons:

1.	The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of light and would be overbearing to the residents of No. 15 Wardley Hall Lane, contrary to Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy HE3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions.

The inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.15 Wardley Hall lane, with particular regard to loss of light and outlook.

The inspector acknowledged that No.15 lies to the west of the application site, there is a solid panelled fence along the common boundary approximately 2.1m in height and No. 15 has a ground floor dining room window facing No. 11. He also acknowledged that this is the only window to this room and the amount of natural light available is already restricted by the proximity of the boundary fence and side wall of No.11

The inspector stated that the proposal would be in clear breach of the SPD with a distance of approximately 5m between the dining room window at No. 15 and the gable end wall of the proposed two storey extensio9n to No.11.

He considered that the current arrangement of the gable wall of No. 11 with the dining room window of No. 15 also breaches the recommendations of the SPD. However given the projection of the proposed extension which would be clearly visible from the dining room window the effect on outlook and daylight would be materially different with the proposal. 

He considered that the resulting combination of height, length of built form that includes the extension and the distance between the properties would result in a significant overbearing impact on, and reduction in daylight for the occupiers using the dining room.
 
The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal

APPLICATION No:	08/56822/COU

APPELLANT:	Mr Q Z Aslam

APPEAL SITE:	232 Rake Lane Clifton Swinton  M27 8RL  

PROPOSAL:	Change of use of ground floor shop to shop for sale of hot food

WARD:	Pendlebury

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	16 March 2009

On the 15^th of October 2008 planning permission for the for the change of use of no. 232 Rake Lane, Clifton from a retail unit (Class A1) use to a shop for the sale of hot food (Class A5), including alterations to elevations, the installation of a disabled access ramp and the installation of extraction flue. 

The reasons for refusal were as follows – 

Insufficient information has been provided in order to justify the loss of an A1 retail unit. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity neighbouring residents, in particular those of the first floor flat at 232 Rake Lane, can reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies DES7 and S4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy HFTA1 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Hot Food Take Aways.

Insufficient details of the proposed fume extraction system, front entrance door, first floor landing window and disabled access ramp have been submitted to enable the full implications of the proposed development to be assessed in relation to visual amenity, odour, noise and nuisance.

The inspector considered the main issues in the determination of the appeal to be the effects of the proposal, firstly on the availability of Use Class A1 retail units in the area; secondly on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with respect to odour, noise and nuisance; and thirdly on the character and appearance of the area. 

With regards to the loss of an A1 unit the Inspector concluded that insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that there was no longer a demand for the retail unit or that a hot food takeaway was a more appropriate use. They did not agree with the appellants assertions that the fact that the unit had been vacant for three years represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was no demand for the site as an A1 retail unit, particularly given the lack of on site advertising of availability. 

The Inspector considered that the proposal would also have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents. With regards to the self contained flat above the takeaway the inspector felt that the siting of the flue between two rear bedroom windows would inhibit the use of the windows for natural ventilation when the takeaway was operating as well as expressing concerns over the level of noise and disturbance the occupiers of the bedrooms on the front elevation would suffer from comings and goings of customers. Similarly the Inspector felt that those at 234-240 Rake Lane would also experience an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance resulting from the comings and goings of patrons. 

The appellant submitted elevational details of the proposal with the appeal. The inspector reviewed the drawings and concluded that the proposed alterations would not cause an unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area. 

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal on the basis that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that there was no longer a demand for the retail unit or that a hot food takeaway was a more appropriate use and that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents.