Name of meeting: PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (HUDDERSFIELD AREA)
Date: 9 APRIL 2015
Title of report: LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY APPEALS
Is it likely to result in spending or
saving £250k or more, or to have a
significant effect on two or more
electoral wards?
No
Is it in the Council’s Forward Plan?
No
Is it eligible for “call in” by Scrutiny? No
Date signed off by Director & name
26 March 2015 Jacqui Gedman
Is it signed off by the Director of
Resources?
No financial implications
Is it signed off by the Acting
Assistant Director - Legal &
Governance?
No legal implications
Cabinet member portfolio
Cllr. P. McBride
Electoral wards affected: Dalton; Greenhead; Holme Valley South;
Golcar;
Ward councillors consulted: No
Public or private: Public
1.
Purpose of report
For information
2.
Key points
2.1
2014/62/91206/W - Erection of single storey extension to rear at 541,
Wakefield Road, Dalton, Huddersfield, HD5 9XW. (Officer)
(Dismissed)
2.2
2014/62/91696/W - Alterations to convert existing basement to 2 flats
(within a Conservation Area) at 2, Crescent Road, Birkby, Huddersfield,
HD2 2TF. (Sub-Committee in accordance with officer
recommendation) (Dismissed)
2.3
2014/62/91811/W - Change of use of 1st floor room to taxi office at
Pink Fusion Lounge, Sheffield Road, New Mill, Holmfirth, HD9 7JT.
(Officer) (Allowed)
2.4
2014/62/90159/W - Erection of two storey extension (within a
Conservation Area) at 41, New Street, Golcar, Huddersfield, HD7 4DZ.
(Officer) (Allowed)
3.
Implications for the Council
Not applicable
4.
Consultees and their opinions
Not applicable
5.
Next steps
Not applicable
6.
Officer recommendations and reasons
To note
7.
Cabinet portfolio holder recommendation
Not applicable
8.
Contact officer and relevant papers
Simon Taylor – Head of Development Management
9.
Director responsible
Jacqui Gedman
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 March 2015
by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 10 March 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/14/2220611
541 Wakefield Road, Dalton, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD5 9XW
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs M Arif against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan
Council.
The application Ref 2014/62/91206/W was refused by notice dated 9 June 2014.
The development proposed is erection of a single storey extension to rear.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. The Council has raised no objections to details of a proposed 4.3 metre single
storey rear extension, and a separate 5.3 metre single storey rear extension,
submitted by the appellants under the prior notification procedure. However,
the appeal proposal cannot be built under this procedure as permitted
development. This is because the sloping nature of the site would result in an
eaves height greater than 3 metres and a ridge height greater than the 4
metre limit that is specified in the Town and Country Planning General
Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended) Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A.
Main issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of
neighbours at No.543 Wakefield Road in respect of outlook and received light.
Reasons
4. The appeal building is a semi-detached two storey dwelling located next to the
busy Wakefield Road. The appeal site slopes down towards the north-east.
There is a detached sectional garage and an existing single storey conservatory
with a mono-pitch roof. This conservatory projects by around 3 metres from
the rear elevation of the building and would be demolished. The adjoining
semi-detached dwelling of No.543 has a conservatory with angled sides which
projects by a maximum depth of approximately 4 metres from the rear
elevation of the building.
5. The proposed extension would extend across nearly the full width of the rear
elevation of the appeal dwelling, and like the existing conservatory, would have
to be built up from ground level because of the sloping site. There would be no
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/14/2220611
windows in the flank wall of the extension facing the conservatory at No.543
and consequently no loss of privacy for the occupants of No.543. However,
there would be a significant loss of outlook for the occupants of No.543 when
using their conservatory because of the degree of projection of the proposed
rear extension and its height and proximity. There would also be some
increased loss of sunlight to the rear garden and conservatory of No.5 during
the latter part of the day because of the height, degree of projection and
proximity of the proposed extension.
6. The proposed extension would conflict with Kirklees Unitary Development Plan
policies D2 and BE14 which seek to protect residential amenity and to avoid
any detrimental effects from development on occupiers of adjoining land. It
would also conflict with the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework
of seeking to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future
occupants of land and buildings.
7. All other matters raised have been taken into account, including the
representation from the occupiers of No.543 regarding matters including
potential loss of light to their conservatory. The appellants refer to the
relaxation of planning controls which supersede the Council’s development plan
policies. However, under the larger homes extensions neighbour consultation
scheme all proposals must accord with relevant limitations and conditions
which apply to other rear extensions allowed under permitted development. For
the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.
Martin H Seddon
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 January 2015
by Louise Nurser BA (Hons) Dip UP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 13 February 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/A/14/2226762
2 Crescent Road, Birkby, Huddersfield, HD2 2TF
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Saleem Akhtar against the decision of Kirklees Council.
The application Ref 2014/62/91696/W, dated 23 May 2014, was refused by notice dated
22 September 2014.
The development proposed is the conversion of basement to form 2 no residential units.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. Whether the future occupiers of the proposed developments would be likely to
experience acceptable living conditions with regard to daylight and outlook.
3. The effect on highway safety arising from the proposed parking arrangements.
Reasons
4. The site is located on the edge of an area which appears to serve a district
centre function. It is in the basement of a hairdresser and shop on the corner
of Crescent and Norman Roads on the edge of Birkby Conservation Area.
Living Conditions
5. I appreciate that the appellant proposes to reopen the light wells to allow
natural daylight to the two flats and and to provide an air ventilation system.
However, it is important that living conditions are acceptable in line with the
objective of the Framework to seek a good standard of amenity for all future
occupants.
6. Even with the proposed light wells I am clear that there would not be a
satisfactory level of daylight within the proposed flats. In addition, as none of
the windows would be above ground level, the outlook of the occupiers to a
blank wall approximately half a metre away would result in unacceptable living
conditions. I am aware of the appellant’s argument that there is an existing
market for this type of conversion, and that the works would be undertaken to
a high standard. However, this does not change my view that the proposed
development would not accord with the objectives of policies B12 and D2 of the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/2226762
Kirklees Unitary Development Plan 1999, to ensure that new development
provides an acceptable living environment.
Highway safety
7. The flats have been designed for single occupancy. As the occupants would
have ready access to local facilities I am not persuaded that the proposal would
increase the amount of on street parking to such an extent that it would result
in a risk to highway safety. Moreover, at the time of my site visit I did not
observe any shortage of parking within the wider area. Consequently, I
conclude that the proposal would accord with policies T10 and T19 of the
Kirklees UDP.
Other Matters
8. From my site visit it appears that Birkby Conservation Area is urban in
character but predominantly residential in nature. A single storey extension is
proposed as part of the development which would extend onto a large forecourt
of York paving stones. In addition, the appellant has stated, but has not
provided detailed plans, that in order to implement the proposal that the
existing disabled access into the shop would require relocating. Consequently,
as the proposal would result in a change to the physical appearance of the
building I have had special regard to the statutory duty to pay special attention
to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of
the Conservation Area.
9. The proposed porch is designed to be built of materials that would match the
property. However, given the highly visible nature of the location and the fact
that the porch which has a domestic appearance would extend approximately 2
metres onto the forecourt, and obscure stone detailing on the elevation to the
shop, it would appear incongruous. This would result in development which
would be harmful to the appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole.
Conclusion
10. I appreciate that the proposed development would provide direct employment
opportunities during its construction, additional income to maintain the host
property, and that the appellant has offered to refurbish the York paving
stones. I am also aware that a shortage of housing has been cited within
Kirklees. However, I have not been provided with any evidence in relation to
this.
11. Nevertheless, the advantages of the scheme set out above do not outweigh the
unacceptable living conditions of any future occupants nor the harm to the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
12. For the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
L Nurser
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 15 January 2015
by
C J Checkley BA(Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 13 February 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/A/14/2228555
Pink Fusion Lounge, Sheffield Road, New Mill, Holmfirth, HD9 7JT
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Mohammed Abaidullah against the decision of Kirklees
Metropolitan Council.
The application Ref 2014/62/91811/W, dated 5 June 2014, was refused by notice dated
18 August 2014.
The development proposed is change of use of first floor room above Pink Fusion Lounge
to form taxi office.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of
first floor room to taxi office at Pink Fusion Lounge, Sheffield Road, New Mill,
Holmfirth, HD9 7JT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
2014/62/91811/W, dated 5 June 2014 and the plans submitted with it, subject
to the following conditions:
1) The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued 12 months after the date of
this decision.
2) No more than two licensed private hire vehicles or taxis shall park or wait in
the car park at any one time during those hours when the restaurant is open
to the public.
3) There shall be no picking up or depositing of passengers and no waiting by
passengers at the taxi office.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: drg nos 1437.1 Location Plan and 1437.2 Site
Plan.
Main Issues
2. The main issues are the effect of the change of use upon first, car parking and
highway safety, and second, the living conditions of local residents.
Reasons
3. Policy S15 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (UDP) indicates that
planning applications for premises for the control and administration of taxis
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/2228555
should take account of criteria including such things as proximity to local
centres, the effect on the amenity of local residents, and the effect on car
parking and highway safety. The site is without notation on the UDP Proposals
Map and UDP Policy D2 requires that consideration be given to such matters as
the effects on highway safety and residential amenity. UDP Policy T10 seeks to
avoid highway safety problems.
4. The application site is a former two-storey public house with a 16-space car
park, now used as a restaurant (Pink Fusion Lounge). There are residential
properties beyond a stream to the rear of the premises. The site is adjacent to
the modest retail/commercial centre at New Mill which includes shops,
takeaways and public houses. There is also a small public car park nearby.
There is no dispute by the Council that this is, in principle, a suitable location
for a taxi office.
5. The appellant states an intention to relocate from existing premises in New Mill
that are of an unsatisfactory standard. The proposed taxi office is a first floor
room to the rear of the building which has an external staircase providing
access from the car park. The material before me indicates that the office
would be used primarily as a telephone booking office and customers would not
wait at or be collected from the premises. The office would operate 24-hours a
day with a maximum of two staff occupying it, with occasional visits from taxi
drivers during their tea/toilet breaks. The appellant indicates it regularly
operates 6 cars with only two being based in the New Mill area, but with
additional vehicles working on Friday/Saturday nights. The Council says
licensing records indicate there are some 17 vehicles and 22 drivers linked to
this taxi business. None of the parking spaces within the restaurant car park
would be reserved for use by taxis.
Parking and highway safety
6. The Council is concerned that there is insufficient off-street parking for the
proposed taxi business and that parking in the restaurant car park, or in the
public car park or on the street would displace spaces required by other visitors
and users including customers of the restaurant, other shops and businesses.
The Council is concerned that this could lead to indiscriminate parking on the
surrounding road network which would not be in the interests of highway
safety and contrary to the provisions of the UDP policies cited.
7. If significant numbers of taxis were to regularly wait within the restaurant cark
during its opening hours there would be detriment to road safety if parking was
displaced onto sections of highway where it caused visual obstruction for road
users. However, this risk would be reduced if conditions were imposed
preventing more than two taxis from waiting in the car park at any time and
preventing passengers from waiting at the taxi office. I accept that the actual
impact on highway safety would become evident once the working practices of
the taxi business had become established.
Living conditions of local residents
8. The Council has not objected to the proposal on grounds of harm to the living
conditions of nearby residents. However, a number of local residents living
within the housing development on the other side of the stream to the rear of
2
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/2228555
the premises are concerned that a 24-hour operation will result in noise
disturbance at anti-social hours. I appreciate that frequent comings and goings
by taxis from the restaurant car park and by people using the elevated stairs to
the proposed office might lead to the generation of noise, which would be
contrary to the residential amenity provisions of the UDP policies described
above. However, this risk could be alleviated by (i) limiting the number of
taxis that could park in the restaurant car park at any one time and by (ii)
preventing customers from waiting at the office.
Conclusions and conditions
9. Having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (ref 21a014-20140306), I consider that this is an instance where the use of a trial run
is necessary to assess the effect of the development upon both
parking/highway safety and the amenity of local residents. I am therefore
granting a temporary permission for the use for a period of 12 months. I am
also imposing other necessary conditions. In the interests of both highway
safety and the living conditions of local residents, no more than two taxis are to
use the restaurant car park at any one time when the restaurant is open and
there is to be no picking up or dropping off of passengers or waiting by
passengers at the taxi office.
10. Finally, it should be noted that the PPG advises that it will rarely be justifiable
to grant a second temporary permission - further permissions should normally
be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so.
Also, there is no presumption that a temporary grant of planning permission
should be granted permanently.
C J Checkley
INSPECTOR
3
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 24 February 2015
by Roger Catchpole Dip Hort BSc (Hons) PhD MCIEEM
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 6 March 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/14/2220684
41 New Street, Golcar, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD7 4DZ
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Miss Kimberley Patterson against the decision of Kirklees
Metropolitan Borough Council.
The application Ref 2014/62/90159/W, dated 21 January 2014, was refused by notice
dated 27 May 2014.
The development proposed is a two storey rear extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey rear
extension at 41 New Street, Golcar, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD7 4DZ in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2014/62/90159/W, dated 21
January 2014, subject to the following conditions:
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2)
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: 07; 08a; 09b; 10b; and 11.
3)
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Preliminary Matters
2. As part of the development has already taken place, I consider the proposal to
be an application for retrospective planning permission and have therefore
dealt with the appeal on that basis.
3. The proposal was amended following submission to the Council but prior to its
determination. This change is reflected in the following plans: 9b and 10b.
However, given the minor nature of the amendments and the opportunity that
the Council have had to consider this evidence, I am satisfied that interested
parties would not be prejudiced. Consequently, the appeal has been
determined on the basis of the most recent plans.
4. I note that the Council has an emerging plan that is at an early stage of
preparation. As it is yet to be examined in public, its policies have not been
tested and I am therefore unable to give it weight in the balance of this appeal.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/14/2220684
5. For reasons of clarity I have shortened the description to remove unnecessary
wording for the purposes of this appeal.
6. I have taken into account the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (PPG),
which came into force on 6 March 2014, in reaching my decision. The relevant
content of this guidance has been considered but, given the facts of this case,
it does not alter my conclusions.
7. The Council have not found the proposal harmful to the character or
appearance of the Golcar Conservation Area. Nonetheless, I have had special
regard to the statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of this heritage asset. In
this respect, as the host property is part of a recent development and given
that the materials and design are sympathetic to the wider Conservation Area,
I am satisfied that the proposal preserves those interests.
Main Issue
8. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the
existing and future occupants of No 39 New Street with regard to outlook.
Reasons
9. The host property is part of a cluster of recently constructed dwellings arranged
along a lengthy cul-de-sac. Whilst the majority of the properties have
frontages that run parallel to New Street, the host property and the two
neighbouring properties are orientated approximately 90o to this road. The
nearest of these properties is No 39 New Street. Due to the sloping ground on
the northern side of the road, the neighbouring properties are set at a
significantly higher level in comparison to the host property. They are also set
forward from the rear elevation of the latter.
10. I observe from the plans and my site visit that the overall projection of the
extension is around 3.2m from the rear elevation of the host property which
takes it beyond the rear elevation of No 39 by about 1.2m. Despite the
proximity of this property; the embankment to the north; and the gable end of
No 43 New Road, I do not find that the proposal has an overbearing,
oppressive effect on the occupants of No 39. This is because only oblique
views of the extension are possible owing to its limited projection beyond the
rear of No 39 and the parallel orientation of the rear elevations of Nos 39 and
41. Moreover, the difference in ground levels is such that the both the host
property and the proposed extension have an overall subservience in relation
to No 39 which further reduces the prominence of this structure.
11. The Council are of the opinion that the proposal would cause a loss of light to
No 39 and that the extension exceeds the maximum permitted projection as
defined in policy BE14 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan 1999 (UDP).
However, given the north-easterly aspect of No 39 and the limited
protuberance of the extension beyond its rear elevation I am not persuaded
that there would be any significant loss of light once the development is
completed. Whilst I accept that the proposal marginally exceeds the threshold
set out in policy BE14 of the UDP, I note that its overarching purpose is to
protect adjoining occupiers from any unreasonable impact that might result
from overly large extensions when houses are close together. Bearing this in
mind, even though the proposal is inconsistent with the specific letter of this
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
2
Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/14/2220684
policy, I find no inconsistency with its overall aim because there is no
significant impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants in this
particular instance.
12. Given the above, I conclude that the proposal does not and would not cause
significant harm to the living conditions of the existing and future occupants of
No 39 New Street with regard to outlook and that it is, therefore, not contrary
to policies BE14 and D2 of the UDP that seek, among other things, to ensure
that proposals do not prejudice residential amenity or have a detrimental effect
on adjoining dwellings.
Conclusion and Conditions
13. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude
that, subject to appropriate conditions, the appeal should be allowed.
14. I have considered both the wording and grounds for the conditions suggested
by the Council in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 206 of the
National Planning Policy Framework 2012. In addition to the standard time
limit condition, a condition requiring development to be carried out in
accordance with the plans is imposed for the avoidance of doubt and in the
interests of proper planning. I have also imposed a condition requiring
matching materials in the interests of preserving the character and appearance
of the local area.
15. The Council has suggested a condition restricting permitted development
rights. However, the PPG advises that conditions restricting the future use of
permitted development rights will rarely pass the test of necessity and should
only be used in exceptional circumstances. Since the Council has not provided
sufficient evidence to suggest that exceptional circumstances apply, I have not
imposed the suggested condition.
Roger Catchpole
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
3