Download Report

Report
Planning Committee
Part 1
Date:
6 May 2015
Item No:
5
Subject
Appeal Decisions
Purpose
To inform Members of the outcome of recent appeals
Author
Development Services Manager
Ward
Caerleon, Graig, Llanwern, Pillgwenlly
Summary The following planning appeal decisions are reported to help inform future
decisions of Planning Committee
Proposal
To accept the appeal decisions as a basis for informing future decisions
of the Planning Committee.
Action by Planning Committee
Timetable Not applicable
This report was prepared without consultation because it is to inform Planning
Committee of appeal decisions already taken.
Background
The reports contained in this schedule provide information on recent appeal decisions.
The purpose of the attached reports is to inform future decision-making. This will help ensure
that future decisions benefit the City and its communities by allowing good quality
development in the right locations and resisting inappropriate or poor quality development in
the wrong locations.
The applicant has a statutory right of appeal against the refusal of permission in most cases.
There is no Third Party right of appeal against a decision.
Work is carried out by existing staff and there are no staffing issues. It is sometimes
necessary to employ a Barrister to act on the Council’s behalf in defending decisions at
planning appeals. This cost is met by existing budgets. Where the Planning Committee
refuses an application against Officer advice, Members will be required to assist in defending
their decision at appeal.
Where applicable as planning considerations, specific issues relating to sustainability and
environmental issues, equalities impact and crime prevention impact of each proposed
development are addressed in the relevant report in the attached schedule.
Financial Summary
The cost of defending decisions at appeal is met by existing budgets. Costs can be awarded
against the Council at an appeal if the Council has acted unreasonably and/or cannot defend
its decisions. Similarly, costs can be awarded in the Council’s favour if an appellant has
acted unreasonably and/or cannot substantiate their grounds of appeal.
Risks
The key risk relating to appeal decisions relates to awards of costs against the Council.
An appeal can be lodged by the applicant if planning permission is refused, or if planning
permission is granted but conditions are imposed, or against the Council’s decision to take
formal enforcement action. Costs can be awarded against the Council if decisions cannot be
defended as reasonable, or if it behaves unreasonably during the appeal process, for
example by not submitting required documents within required timescales. Conversely,
costs can be awarded in the Council’s favour if the appellant cannot defend their argument
or behaves unreasonably.
An appeal can also be lodged by the applicant if the application is not determined within the
statutory time period. However, with the type of major development being presented to the
Planning Committee, which often requires a Section 106 agreement, it is unlikely that the
application will be determined within the statutory time period. Appeals against nondetermination are rare due to the further delay in receiving an appeal decision: it is generally
quicker for applicants to wait for the Planning Authority to determine the application. Costs
could only be awarded against the Council if it is found to have acted unreasonably.
Determination of an application would only be delayed for good reason, such as resolving an
objection or negotiating improvements or Section 106 contributions, and so the risk of a
costs award is low.
Mitigation measures to reduce risk are detailed in the table below. The probability of these
risks occurring is considered to be low due to the mitigation measures, however the costs
associated with a public inquiry can be very significant. These are infrequent, so the impact
is considered to be medium.
Risk
Decisions
challenged at
appeal and
costs awarded
against the
Council.
Impact of
Risk if it
occurs*
(H/M/L)
M
Probability
of risk
occurring
(H/M/L)
L
What is the Council doing
or what has it done to avoid
the risk or reduce its effect
Ensure reasons for refusal
can be defended at appeal;
Who is
responsible for
dealing with the
risk?
Planning
Committee
Ensure planning conditions
imposed meet the tests set
out in Circular 11/95;
Planning
Committee
Provide guidance to
Planning Committee
regarding relevant material
planning considerations,
conditions and reasons for
refusal.
Development
Services Manager
and Senior Legal
Officer
Ensure appeal timetables
are adhered to.
Planning Officers
Appeal lodged M
L
Avoid delaying the
against nondetermination of
determination,
applications unreasonably.
with costs
awarded
against the
Council
* Taking account of proposed mitigation measures
Development
Services Manager
Links to Council Policies and Priorities
Not applicable. This report is to inform Planning Committee of decisions made by the
Planning Inspectorate and/or Welsh Ministers.
Options Available
To accept the appeal decisions as a basis for informing future decisions of the Planning
Committee.
Preferred Option and Why
To accept the appeal decisions as a basis for informing future decisions of the Planning
Committee.
Comments of Chief Financial Officer
In the normal course of events, there should be no specific financial implications arising from
the determination of planning applications or enforcement action.
There is always a risk of a planning decision being challenged at appeal. This is especially
the case where the Committee makes a decision contrary to the advice of Planning Officers
or where in making its decision, the Committee takes into account matters which are not
relevant planning considerations. These costs can be very considerable, especially where
the planning application concerned is large or complex or the appeal process is likely to be
protracted.
Members of the Planning Committee should be mindful that the costs of defending appeals
and any award of costs against the Council following a successful appeal must be met by
the taxpayers of Newport.
There is no provision in the Council's budget for such costs and as such, compensating
savings in services would be required to offset any such costs that were incurred as a result
of a successful appeal.
Comments of Monitoring Officer
There are no legal implications other than those referred to in the report or detailed above.
Staffing Implications: Comments of Head of People and Business Change
Development Management work is undertaken by an in-house team and therefore there are
no staffing implications arising from this report. Officer recommendations have been based
on adopted planning policy which aligns with the Single Integrated Plan and the Council’s
Corporate Plan objectives.
Local issues
Not applicable. This report is to inform Planning Committee of decisions made by the
Planning Inspectorate and/or Welsh Ministers.
Equalities Impact Assessment
The Equality Act 2010 contains a Public Sector Equality Duty which came into force on 06
April 2011. The Act identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability;
gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual
orientation; marriage and civil partnership. The new single duty aims to integrate
consideration of equality and good relations into the regular business of public authorities.
Compliance with the duty is a legal obligation and is intended to result in better informed
decision-making and policy development and services that are more effective for users. In
exercising its functions, the Council must have due regard to the need to: eliminate unlawful
discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited by the Act;
advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and
those who do not; and foster good relations between persons who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not. The Act is not overly prescriptive about the approach a
public authority should take to ensure due regard, although it does set out that due regard to
advancing equality involves: removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due
to their protected characteristics; taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected
groups where these differ from the need of other people; and encouraging people from
protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is
disproportionately low.
An Equality Impact Assessment for delivery of the Development Management service has
been completed and can be viewed on the Council’s website.
Children and Families (Wales) Measure
Not applicable. This report is to inform Planning Committee of decisions made by the
Planning Inspectorate and/or Welsh Ministers.
Consultation
Not applicable. This report is to inform Planning Committee of decisions made by the
Planning Inspectorate and/or Welsh Ministers.
Background Papers
Not applicable
Dated: 28 April 2015
PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL – ALLOWED WITH CONDITIONS
APPEAL REF:
14/0734
APPEAL TYPE:
Written Representations
WARD:
Caerleon
SITE:
8, Bay Tree Close, Caerleon, Newport, NP18
3RT
SUBJECT:
Conversion and extension of ground floor
garage into habitable space with first floor
addition above
APPELLANT:
R. Raymond
PLANNING INSPECTOR:
Janine Townsley
DATE OF COUNCIL’S DECISION:
27 January 2014
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission
COMMITTEE/DELEGATED:
Committee
COMMITTEE DECISION:
Refuse planning permission
DECISION: APPEAL ALLOWED WITH CONDITIONS
SUMMARY
Planning permission was sought for the conversion and extension of a ground floor garage
into habitable space with a first floor extension above at a property known as 8 Bay Tree
Close in Caerleon. Bay Tree Close forms part of a residential estate comprising mainly of
detached dwellings laid out in cul-de-sacs with staggered building lines. It was proposed that
the first floor element of the extension would be set back from the existing first floor elevation
and at the rear both storeys would be flush with the existing rear wall of the dwelling.
The relationship of the application property and its nearest neighbour, No. 9 Bay Tree Close,
is such that the application property is set back approximately 3 metres from the front
elevation of No. 9. As the extension would therefore protrude beyond the existing rear
building line of No. 9, its occupants objected to the application on the grounds that it would
appear visually overbearing and overshadow their dining room, first floor bedroom, patio and
garden. Officers however reached the conclusion that the impact of the development would
not be harmful enough to render the proposals unacceptable, taking into account factors
such as the orientation of the gardens in relation to the sun and the relevant light and
overbearing splay tests referred to in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
House Extensions. The accuracy of the tests carried out by Officers was however disputed
by the neighbours.
The application was called to Committee by Councillor Huntley to discuss the overbearing
effect and the loss of daylight to the neighbour’s property. The Planning Committee decided
that that a site visit should be undertaken by the Planning Site Sub-committee who assessed
the overbearing impact from No. 9. The Sub-committee reached the conclusion that the
application should be refused because of the overbearing impact of the development on this
property. Following the refusal of the application a revised application was submitted for an
extension with a lesser set back at the front meaning that the extension would protrude to a
lesser extent beyond the existing rear wall of the garage. The residents of No. 9 maintained
their objection however the application in that instance was granted by the Planning
Committee. The applicant nevertheless decided to appeal against the refusal of the original
application.
The Inspector agreed with Officer’s initial assessment of the application. Although she did
not refer to the overbearing impact of the extension in her report, in terms of light she stated
that whilst some might be lost as a result of the addition of the second storey, this would only
be for part of the day and during this time not all parts of the rear garden would be affected.
She therefore concluded that the impact of the proposed extension on the living conditions of
No. 9 would not be unacceptable.
The Inspector acknowledged that there was some dispute in relation to the measurements
taken to apply the tests in the SPG however she was satisfied that sufficient effort was
expended to ensure accurate measurements were taken on site. She referred to the fact that
repeat site visits were made by the Officer to consider the relative location of the potentially
affected windows and stated that the Officer’s report goes into detail in addressing the
dispute about measurements in order to ascertain the extent to which the proposed
development might overshadow No. 9. The Inspector therefore saw no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the measurements taken on site.
The Inspector concluded that the development would not result in any material harm to the
occupants of No. 9 and that the proposals comply with Policy GP2 (General Amenity) of the
Newport Local Development Plan. The appeal was therefore allowed with conditions
requiring that the materials match those of the original dwelling, an additional parking space
is provided on site to compensate for the loss of the garage, and the additional parking
space has a porous or permeable surface.
APPEAL ALLOWED WITH CONDITIONS 1ST APRIL 2015
PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL – DISMISSED
APPEAL REF:
14/0750
APPEAL TYPE:
Written Representations
WARD:
Graig
SITE:
168, Laurel Road, Bassaleg, Newport, NP10
8PT
SUBJECT:
Extension to form a new one bedroom dwelling
APPELLANT:
M. Daly
PLANNING INSPECTOR:
Gareth A. Rennie
DATE OF COUNCIL’S DECISION:
11th September 2014
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
Refused
COMMITTEE/DELEGATED:
Delegated
DECISION: APPEAL DISMISSED
SUMMARY
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a one bedroom dwelling attached to a
semi-detached dwelling in the Bassaleg area. The site comprises a corner plot on the
junction of Laurel Road and Grosvenor Road. The dwelling was proposed to be 9.1m deep,
4.2m wide and reach a height of 7.2m. The dwelling would have been set down from the
ridge of the adjoining dwelling by 0.2m and set back from the front elevation by 0.9m at first
floor and level with the front elevation at ground floor.
Officers were satisfied that the development would not result in the overdevelopment of the
site or have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties by way of overbearing
impact, loss of light or loss privacy. The LPA’s main concerns with the proposals were on
highway grounds. The Head of Streetscene and City Services objected to the proposal on
the grounds that the proposals were deficient of one parking space in accordance with their
Parking Standards, and that the new dwelling would intensify the use of the existing access
into the site which is close to a highway junction and could increase the potential for conflict
with vehicles using the junction. The application was therefore refused on the grounds that
the impact of the development on the public highway would render the proposal contrary to
Policies H2 (Housing Sites within Settlement Boundaries) and CE35 (Sub-division of
Curtilages and Backland Development) of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as well as
the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Infill and Backland Development.
The Inspector agreed with the Council’s assessment of the application. He considered that
the proposal would result in increased competition for parking that could not be met within
the existing provision and it would be likely that any overspill would have to be met on the
street. He also stated that the increased competition for parking spaces would likely impact
on the ability of drivers to turn and manoeuvre in the parking area which means that vehicles
would have to reverse onto the carriageway, presenting a significant risk to road safety. He
agreed that the increased use of the access in general would heighten the risk of conflict
close to and at the junction, which he described as “busy and difficult”. He also stated that
the likely increased on street parking caused by the development would exacerbate such
risk and increase the potential for congestion close to the junction.
Although the appellant pointed out that a planning application granted in February 2014 for a
two storey side extension represents a fall-back position, the Inspector considered that the
introduction of an additional household onto the site would increase parking demand
significantly over and above that of an extended property.
The Inspector concluded that the development would have unacceptable highway
implications and would be contrary to Policies H2 and CE35 and the SPG. The appeal was
consequently dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED 27TH MARCH 2015
PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL – DISMISSED
APPEAL REF:
14/1139
APPEAL TYPE:
Householder Appeals Service
WARD:
Llanwern
SITE:
44, Bloomery Circle, Glan Llyn, Newport, NP19
4TR
SUBJECT:
Proposed rear balcony with privacy screens
APPELLANT:
L. Bailey
PLANNING INSPECTOR:
Richard Duggan
DATE OF COUNCIL’S DECISION:
6th January 2015
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse planning permission
COMMITTEE/DELEGATED:
Delegated
DECISION: DISMISSED
SUMMARY
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a rear balcony at a newly built residential
property located within the Glan Llyn regeneration area. The property is a maisonette
located above a set of garages surrounded by a parking area and does not benefit from any
usable outdoor amenity space. The balcony was proposed to measure 1.7 metres in depth
and 4 metres in width. Obscure glazed privacy screens were proposed to be erected along
the side and rear elevations of the balcony. The side screens would have measured 1.3
metres in height and the rear screen 1.8 metres in height.
The application was refused firstly for the reason that the balcony would have the potential to
cause significant overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties due to its close
proximity to two properties at Brinell Square to the east and the neighbouring property on
Bloomery Circle to the north. Although the applicant attempted to address the issue of loss
of privacy by including the privacy screening in the proposals, Officers were of the opinion
that the erection of a 1.8 metre high screen along the rear elevation would result in the
creation of a low quality outdoor amenity space for the applicant and future occupiers, with a
very enclosed and overbearing feel. Officers were meanwhile not satisfied that the privacy
issue had been addressed. This was firstly because the proposed screens to the side
elevations were not considered high enough to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring
residents and to raise the height of these screens would further reduce the quality of the
amenity space. Secondly, the balconies’ amenity space was not judged to be particularly
private as it would be located adjacent to a semi-public parking area and would be mutually
overlooked by neighbouring properties in close proximity. The application was therefore also
refused for the reason that the resulting amenity space would be low quality.
The Council defended the appeal by arguing that the development would be contrary to
Policies GP2 (General Amenity) and GP6 (Quality of Design) of the Newport Local
Development Plan and the Inspector agreed with this assessment. The Inspector stated that
the balcony would have commanding views over three of the neighbouring properties and,
although there is presently some overlooking of these properties from the existing window,
views from an elevated external platform would be significantly more intrusive. The Inspector
also agreed that the proposed measures to obscure glaze the balustrade would be
ineffectual. He stated that occupiers would still be able to stand near the edge of the balcony
and have a relatively unobstructed view of the neighbouring properties.
Turning to the second reason for refusal, the Inspector agreed that the amenity space
created by the balcony would be a poor quality space for sitting out. He described the space
as “very enclosed and claustrophobic” owing to the height of the proposed screen on the
rear elevation.
For these reasons the Inspector concluded that the development would have a detrimental
impact on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings through overlooking and loss of
privacy, and would also lead to unacceptable area of outdoor amenity for occupiers of the
appeal property. He therefore considered that the proposal conflicts with Policies GP2 and
GP6 and dismissed the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED 26TH MARCH 2015
PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL – DISMISSED
APPEAL REF:
13/0876
APPEAL TYPE:
Written Representations
WARD:
Pillgwenlly
SITE:
39 Commercial Road, Newport, NP20 2PE
SUBJECT:
Various alterations and extensions to building
APPELLANT:
I. Newman
PLANNING INSPECTOR:
Gareth A. Rennie
DATE OF COUNCIL’S DECISION:
5 June 2014
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse planning permission
COMMITTEE/DELEGATED:
Delegated
DECISION: DISMISSED
SUMMARY
Planning permission was sought for various works to a three storey-mid, terrace property in
the Commercial Road District Centre which is currently unoccupied and in a poor state of
repair, and used to contain a commercial unit in the ground floor and two flats above. The
building is located just outside of the Lower Dock Street Conservation Area. The
development proposed was: the erection of a second floor rear extension to facilitate the
enlargement of second floor flat to a two bedroom flat, new windows in existing rear
elevation; conversion of attic space to a self-contained flat and associated works including
raising the roof level and the addition of 2 No. Dormer windows to front elevation roof and
rear dormer extension to the main roof to facilitate the conversion; installation of replacement
UPVC windows and stonework to front elevation and erection of single storey rear extension
to ground floor shop.
The application was a resubmission following the refusal of a similar scheme in 2012. That
particular application was refused firstly because it was judged that the proposed front
dormers, alterations to the front elevation and rear dormer would upset the proportions of the
building and detract from the character and appearance of the street scene, to the detriment
of public safety. A second reason for refusal was that the attic conversion and the addition of
a second bedroom to the second floor flat would result in a shortfall of off-street parking,
increasing the demand for on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety. The details
submitted by the applicant with this application were largely the same, with the exception of
minor alterations to the proposed extensions and a sustainability assessment to justify the
shortfall in off-street parking. Officers however reached the conclusion that the proposed
dormers and alterations to the front elevation would once again upset the proportions of the
building and that the loss of the parking space could not be justified as it would contravene
the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance. The application was therefore
refused for these reasons.
The Inspector agreed with the Local Planning Authority’s first reason for refusal. He noted
that the character of the area is heavily influenced by the terraces with commercial premises
and residential accommodation above and stated that an important aspect of their character
is the regularity of their layout and relative consistency of their appearance. He also stated
that the consistency of the appearance of their roofs makes an important contribution to the
appearance of the street as a whole. The Inspector considered that the proposed front
dormers would be located in a prominent part of the roof which would make them very visible
from the street, and therefore would interrupt the otherwise largely undisturbed line of roofs
on this side of the street. The Inspector also commented that the inclusion of a parapet
would be incongruous and similarly inconsistent with the surrounding buildings, whilst the
proposed realigned windows arrangement would introduce a level of asymmetry, especially
as the alignment would not be repeated by the dormers. As result of the proposed front
dormers, parapet and realigned windows, the Inspector concluded that the development
would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street and would be
contrary to Policy GP6 (Quality of Design) of the Local Development Plan.
The Inspector did not however agree that the application should have been refused on
parking grounds. He stated that whilst the proposal does not provide the level of parking
suggested by the Council’s guidelines, there is a car park nearby and both regulated and
unregulated areas on the street. He also commented that the location of the site is
sustainable as it is situated within walking distance of a wide range of services, facilities and
public transport opportunities. The Inspector meanwhile stated that there was no evidence
that competition for spaces could result in an increase in indiscriminate parking and
congestion as parking in the area is well regulated, which would discourage such parking.
The Inspector therefore concluded that it is unlikely that the proposals would give rise to any
appreciable additional risk to road safety but stated that this does not outweigh his
conclusions with regards to the design of the proposals and consequently dismissed the
appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED 31ST MARCH 2015