16th September 2013 / AGENDA ITEM 3
PLANNING/ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DETERMINED/LODGED
1.0 Matter for consideration
1.1 The Committee will be requested to note the planning and enforcement appeals, lodged and determined.
2.0 Recommendation(s)
2.1 To note the report
3.0 Planning/Enforcement Appeals Determined
3.1 80 Sherbourne Road, Blackpool FY1 2PQ (12/8424)
An appeal was submitted by Mr Alpasian Derme against an Enforcement Notice served by Blackpool Council on 14 November 2012, in respect of the material change of use of the land from forecourt to use for hot food sales. Appeal dismissed.
The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect of the stationing of the hot food van and its connection to the shop frontage, which has resulted in a change of use of the forecourt to use for hot food sales, on the visual amenity of the area.
The Inspector stated that the van, given its size and position in front of the shop, is a prominent and incongruous element in the street-scene, in both near and long distance views along Sherbourne Road. Its stationing in front of the shop is visually intrusive and the change of use of the forecourt has had a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. Therefore he considered that the development conflicts with saved policies BH3 and LQ1 of the Blackpool Local Plan.
In relation to the Ground (G) appeal, he felt that 7 days was insufficient time to remove the van to a suitable alternative location and for the safe and complete removal of the connecting element. The Inspector said that the 28 days sought by the Appellant is a reasonable period, so he varied the Enforcement notice accordingly.
The Enforcement Notice was complied with promptly with as the owner ceased using the land for the purposes of hot food sales and removed from the site all goods, vehicles and signs associated with that use.
3.2 95 Lord Street, Blackpool FY1 2DJ (12/0769)
An appeal was submitted by Mr J R Town against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for the use of the premises as a mixed use, comprising one self- contained permanent flat and a House in Multiple Occupation. Appeal dismissed.
The Inspector considered the main issues to be (1) the effect of the proposed flat and House in Multiple Occupation on the mix of housing in the Claremont Neighbourhood and in the Borough and (2) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers with particular regard to the internal standard of accommodation, including amenity space provision, privacy, outlook and daylight.
On the first issue, he concluded that the development would harm the Council's efforts to rebalance the housing market. This would be contrary to Policies HN5, HN6 and BH1 of the Blackpool Local Plan and the guidance within the New Homes from Old Places SPD which seeks, amongst other things, to prevent the creation of HMOs and the further over-concentration of existing flats and also to improve the mix of house types and sizes.
On the second issue, he concluded that the proposal would lead to unsatisfactory living conditions for future occupiers and would therefore be contrary to Policy BH3 of the Local Plan and the minimum standards set out in the New Homes from Old Places SPD which seeks to ensure that residential amenity is not adversely affected by way of privacy, outlook or levels of daylight.
However, the Inspector also stated that the Council's policies relevant to the supply of housing were not up-to-date and, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, this requires that the decision maker grant permission for proposals for sustainable development unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.
He considered that, the development was, at least in locational terms, sustainable and would, on the face of it, provide a form of market housing in a borough where there is an acknowledged shortfall in supply and he apportioned substantial weight to the appellant's desire to provide such accommodation in this context.
However, he concluded that the provision of the type of accommodation proposed would, on the basis of the substantive evidence presented by the Council and supported by a detailed SPD, compound and accentuate adverse patterns of social deprivation in the area. Moreover, the substandard nature of the accommodation proposed and the adverse impact on living conditions it would cause, would compound this harm, escalating these negative casual factors. So, notwithstanding the presumption in favour of sustainable development anticipated by the Framework, these adverse impacts would very significantly and demonstrably outweigh the factors supporting the proposal.
4.0 Planning/Enforcement Appeals Lodged
4.1 2 Promenade, Blackpool FY1 4TQ (13/0135)
An appeal has been lodged by Mr P. Swann against the refusal of advertisement consent for the display of 3 non-illuminated banner signs to Promenade and south side elevations.
4.2 15 King Edward Avenue, Blackpool FY2 9TA (13/0244)
An appeal has been lodged by Mr J. McCann against refusal of planning permission for the use of the premises as single private dwellinghouse.
4.3 53 Palatine Road, Blackpool FY1 4BX
An appeal has been lodged by Mr L. Piercy against refusal of planning permission for the use of the premises as student accommodation for up to six students.
5.0 Financial considerations
5.1 None
6.0 Legal considerations
6.1 None
Relevant officer:
Gary Johnston, Head of Development Management
Tel: (01253) 476220, e-mail
Appendices attached:
None
Background papers:
None