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 	53.85 %

APPLICATION No:	07/55208/FUL

APPELLANT:	Elite Homes (NW) Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	Pendlebury Miners Welfare Institute Temple Drive Swinton M27 4EB   

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two/three/three and half storey buildings comprising 26 residential units together with associated car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses

WARD:	Swinton South

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	25 July 2008

In October 2007 planning permission was refused for the erection of two/three/three and half storey buildings comprising 26 residential units together with associated car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses at the former Pendlebury Miners Welfare Institute, Temple Drive, Swinton.

Members will recall that three applications for residential development have been refused.  In each occasion the density and proportion of apartments on site were reduced.

Application 07/55208/FUL was considered by the panel on the 18th October 2007 and was refused contrary to the officer recommendation.  The reason for refusal states:

1.	The proposed development would constitute incremental development that would unacceptably hamper and reduce the development options for the wider area contrary to adopted policy DEV6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the draft St Augustine’s Conservation Area Appraisal.

Part of the appeal site abuts the St Augustine’s Conservation Area although a proportion which did not include any residential development.  Prior to determination of the appeal scheme the Council completed a Conservation Area Appraisal for St Augustine’s Conservation Area.  The Council’s case relied heavily on this draft document in that it acknowledges a need for a master plan for this site and the neighbouring BASF site to enable the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area and the setting of the grade I listed St Augustine’s Church.  In essence, the Council argued that the approval of the appeal scheme would reduce the potential for a planned redevelopment of this area adjacent to the listed building and conservation and therefore would be premature at this time.

However, the Inspector stated that… ‘No area adjacent to the appeal site has been so identified and from the information before me there is no indication that this is likely to be the case.  In my view UDP Policy DEV6 is not directly relevant to the appeal scheme’

In relation to the Conservation Area Appraisal the Inspector states …’although the SPD specifically refers to the possible development of the wider area and indicates that an appropriate development plan should be created to facilitate the need to preserve and the potential to enhance the conservation area, it does not indicate a need for a comprehensive regeneration of the wider area including the appeal site.  Nor does it intimate that such an approach is in preparation.’

The Inspector goes on to conclude that… ‘I consider that the appeal scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the St Augustine’s Conservation Area and as such would accord with the overall objectives of the SPD.’

However, the appeal has been dismissed as the appellant had not provided a legal agreement with the appeal submission in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD.  It should be noted that a condition requiring a legal agreement was recommended by officers prior to the panel meeting.

In conclusion the Inspectors states…’Therefore, although I have concluded that the appeal proposal would be consistent with the development approach for the area, having regard to local and national planning policies, I consider that it would conflict with UDP Policy H8 in respect of open space provision.  For the reasons given above I consider the appeal should fail.’

Appeal dismissed 25th July 2008.

APPLICATION No:	07/55652/FUL

APPELLANT:	L Wallwork

APPEAL SITE:	19 Heron Street Pendlebury Swinton M27 4DJ   

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of two-storey rear extension and single storey outhouse and outoutbuildings and conversion of single family dwelling into two self-contained flats together with a two-storey infill development to form two additional self-contained flats (four self-contained flats in total) and erection of external metal staircase at rear of property (Resubimssion of planning application 07/54449/COU)

WARD:	Pendlebury

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	16 July 2008

The appeal decision relates to a proposal for the erection of a two storey rear extension and outbuildings, conversion of a house to two apartments, the erection of a two storey building comprising two apartments and an external staircase and associated parking at 19 Heron Street. The Local Planning Authority refused the application on the grounds that;

2.	The proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site by reason of number and intensity of proposed flats, inadequate access arrangements to the rear car parking, and poor waste management at both ground and first floor, significantly affecting the amenity of users and neighbouring occupiers contrary to policies DES7 and A10 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The inspector considered that the built form of the development would not be out of keeping with the existing residential development along Heron Street and would not visually represent over-development of the site. It was also considered that proposed apartments would improve the mix of housing in the area.

The inspector considered that the amenity space available to the rear of the development would be sufficient for the proposed apartments and would provide future occupants with an adequate level of amenity. The inspector deemed that the proposed level of car parking would be acceptable given the proposals sustainable location and that the level of car parking would not cause disturbance or inconvenience to neighbours who rely on leaving their cars in Heron Street. The proposed rear car parking was considered by the inspector to be acceptable as the limited number of cars using the rear passage would be travelling at a low speed and would not pose a threat to safety. The arrangements for waste disposal were also considered by the inspector to be acceptable.

The inspector subsequently upheld the appeal.