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 	33.33 %

APPLICATION No:	08/56727/FUL

APPELLANT:	H Kaur

APPEAL SITE:	62 Fitzwarren Street Salford M6 5JE    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from dental surgery (Class D1) to shop for the sale of hot food (Class A5) and the installation of  extractor flue on rear elavation

WARD:	Langworthy

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	8 June 2009

This appeal relates to an application (08/56727/FUL) which was refused on the 8th September 2008 on the grounds that it would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents and would injure the character and amenity of the area by reason of smell, fumes, noise, disturbance and general activity, and thus would be contrary to policies S4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

The Inspector noted that although the proposed hot food takeaway would be some distance from the nearest houses, a number of flats exist at first floor within the terraced row. The Inspector makes reference to the City Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Hot Food Takeaways’ and details how Policy HFTA1 indicates that planning permission will not normally be granted where a unit of residential accommodation exists directly above or adjacent to the proposed hot food takeaway establishment. The Inspector stated within his report that he4 shared the concerns of the Council that cooking smells could penetrate the fabric of the building. The Inspector recognised that the upper floor of number 62 would be used as staff accommodation, but remained of the opinion that this did not alter the possibility that the odour penetration could be a nuisance for occupiers of the occupiers of the adjoining flats. Furthermore the Inspector noted that no technical specification has been submitted in relation to the flue and as such could not be satisfied that the proposal would not cause an unacceptable odour nuisance for the occupiers of adjoining flats.

The Inspector found that although ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the appeal property were not available, he found it highly probable that they are quite high given the heavily trafficked nature of Fitzwarren Street and the presence of other commercial uses. Given this, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be unlikely to result in a noticeable increase in noise levels for nearby residents up to the appellants suggested closing time of 10pm.

In relation to the positive aspects of the development as outlined by the appellant such as the regenerative benefits and employment opportunities, the Inspector found that these would not outweigh the concerns in relation to smells and odours and the impact upon residential amenity.

The Inspector did not agree that the impact upon residential amenity in relation to noise and disturbance would be significant, however concurred with the Council on the point of smells, fumes and odours and the impact this would have on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. On this basis the Inspector dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	08/56797/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mr Paul Atherton

APPEAL SITE:	Land On West Behind Houses Mytholme Avenue Cadishead    

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application for the erection a of detached dwelling, two stables and tack room

WARD:	Cadishead

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	10 June 2009

This appeal relates to an outline application 08/56797/FUL which was refused on 29 September 2008  for reasons of site allocation contrary to Policy R6, development of a greenfield site contrary to Policy ST11 and PPS 3 Housing and lack of a flood risk assessment.

The Inspector considered that the main issues were whether the proposal accords with the development plan in relation to the proposed use of the site, the potential impact in terms of flood risk and the potential impact in terms of contamination.

The inspector noted that although the plans suggested that part of the site would be given over to accommodate a footpath that could link into the city’s Strategic Recreation Route Network there was nothing in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking or S106 to secure it.

He continued that the provision of a dwelling would not comply with UDP Policy ST11 and that whilst it was not clear if the dwelling was intended to act in concert with the stables, tack room and paddock no justification had been put forward for this approach in terms of the functional and financial tests set out in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

In addition he noted that the development would not secure an improvement to an important gateway site, as outlined in Policy R6. Nor had it been shown that the site was suitable for residential development as a Flood Risk assessment had not been submitted and the application did not comply with the advice of PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk and Policy EN 19.

Finally, no information had been submitted to deal with possible site contamination contrary to the advice in PPS 23: Planning and Pollution Control.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal.