20th December 2010 / 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
3.1 157 Whitegate Drive, Blackpool, FY3 9ER (10/0516)
Appeal by Ms. Heidi Wade against the refusal of planning permission for the use of the land as a car park. Appeal Dismissed
The Inspector considered this stretch of Whitegate Drive to have predominantly residential character. He did not identify any apparent need for a car park to serve the commercial centre at the northern end of Whitegate Drive, nor to serve the established health and education institutional centres on the eastern side of the road. Although the Inspector accepted that the car park would be likely to be used by staff and visitors of the Whitegate Health Centre, he considered that this would compromise the implementation of the approved Travel Plan. The Inspector judged that, as proposed, the car park would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area through the introduction of signage, and on the residential amenity of the adjacent neighbours. He also concluded that the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of protected trees.
3.2 33 Clifford Road, Blackpool. FY1 2PU (10/8021)
Appeal by Mr S Langan against the issue of an enforcement notice in respect of the material change of use of the property from a single private dwelling-house to two self-contained permanent flats. Appeal Allowed.
The Inspector identified the main issue is whether the two flats would provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants.
The Council expressed concern that the second bedroom of the first floor flat was 5m² when SPG10 states it should be a minimum of 8m². The Inspector accepted that this room was small, but as it functioned as a bedroom when the property was a house then this was not good reason to resist the conversion.
The Inspector though it appropriate to require provision of 2 parking spaces to the rear of the property.
He concluded that that the appeal scheme is capable of providing a satisfactory living environment for future occupants, and he found no sound basis upon which to conclude that the development would undermine the aim of policies which seek to improve the Claremont inner area neighbourhood.
The Inspector allowed the appeal, directed that the enforcement notice be quashed and granted planning permission for the material change of use of the land at 33 Clifford Road to use as 2 self-contained flats subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans submitted with planning application ref.09/1628;
2. The first floor flat shall not be occupied until 2 car parking spaces have been provided on land at the rear of the building, in accordance with a scheme that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
3. The first floor flat shall not be occupied until a refuse bin storage area has been provided at the premises, in accordance with a scheme that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended, or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, the premises shall be used as 2 self-contained flats for permanent occupation and for no other purpose.
3.3 122 Church Street, Blackpool FY1 3PP. (09/8461)
Appeal submitted by Mr Roy Lanning against an Enforcement Notice served by Blackpool Council in respect of the installation of an automated teller machine to the Church Street elevation. Appeal Allowed.
The ATM is installed within one of two windows either side of a recessed doorway in the property. It is positioned asymmetrically in the original opening. The Inspector considered that, “given the asymmetry of the shopfront, this additional asymmetry is not incongruous”.
Regarding the materials used in the construction of the surround, the Inspector considered that “the immediate surround of the ATM is blue to match the colour of the shopfront”, and that “the ‘CASH’ sign above the ATM is red and continues the theme of red highlights elsewhere on the shopfront”. The Inspector considered that the installation of the ATM has not adversely affected the appearance of the shopfront or the street scene.
The Inspector concluded:
“The installation of the ATM has not had an adverse effect on the appearance of the shopfront or on the street scene on Church Street. The retention of the ATM does not thus conflict with saved policies LQ1, LQ11 and LQ14 of the Blackpool Local Plan”. The Enforcement Notice was quashed and planning permission granted.
3.4 146 Anchorsholme Lane East, Blackpool FY5 3AT (10/8115)
Appeal submitted by Mr & Mrs Farmer against an Enforcement Notice served by Blackpool Council in respect of the creation of a dormer to the side of the property. Appeal Dismissed.
The appellants only lodged their appeal on Ground (F), that lesser steps than those specified in the Notice (specifically, the removal of the side dormer) could remedy the breach. They argued that the dormer could be reduced in size, bringing the total roof extensions to within the 50 cubic metre permitted development limit.
The Inspector disagreed, stating that the dormer “is a dominant feature, readily seen from neighbouring properties, and there is a clear potential for neighbouring gardens to be overlooked from its windows”. He agreed that these are reasonable grounds for the Council to conclude that the dormer is both contrary to planning policies and injurious to amenity.
The Inspector considered it unclear whether, in the light of other alterations to the property, it is now physically possible to construct a dormer that complies fully with permitted development provisions. He stated that “such rights exist irrespective of the terms of the enforcement notice; but, in the light of this uncertainty, I do not think it appropriate for these rights to be specifically referred to in the requirements of the notice”.
The Inspector concluded that:
“In order to remedy the breach of planning control I appear to have little option other than to require the removal of the dormer in its entirety. I am also satisfied that such a requirement is a reasonable way of overcoming the injury to the amenity of neighbours that the Council has identified.”
4.0 Planning/Enforcement Appeals Lodged
4.1 225 Church Street, Blackpool FY1 3PB (10/0401)
Appeal by Mr Colin Phillips against the refusal of planning permission for the Use of premises as single private dwellinghouse.
4.2 Land to rear of 127-131 Newton Drive, Blackpool FY3 8LZ (10/0725)
Appeal by Mr S. Bowe against the refusal of planning permission for the Erection of three storey detached building to house dementia care unit.
4.3 Land at Coop Street, Blackpool (09/1548)
Appeal by Mr H Plant against the refusal of planning permission for the Erection of part seven, part eight storey building comprising 61 self-contained, permanent flats with associated car parking facilities, accessed from Coop Street.
4.4 Ral-Mar Nurseries, Sandy Lane, Blackpool (09/0883)
Appeal by Mr A Powell against the refusal of planning permission for the Use of a building as a single dwelling house.
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: Background papers:
None None