Name of meeting: PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (HEAVY WOOLLEN AREA) Date: 5 FEBRUARY 2015

Transcription

1 Name of meeting: PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE (HEAVY WOOLLEN AREA) Date: 5 FEBRUARY 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? Is it in the Council s Forward Plan? No No Is it eligible for call in by Scrutiny? No Date signed off by Director & name Is it signed off by the Director of Resources? Is it signed off by the Acting Assistant Director - Legal & Governance? Cabinet member portfolio 27 January 2015 Jacqui Gedman No financial implications No legal implications Cllr. P. McBride Electoral wards affected: Mirfield; Denby Dale; Dewsbury South; Kirkburton Ward councillors consulted: No Public or private: Public 1. Purpose of report For information 2. Key points /62/91648/E - Erection of front dormer at 7, Parkfield Crescent, Mirfield, WF14 9HQ. (Sub-Committee in accordance with Officer recommendation) (Dismissed) /62/93777/E - Erection of 1 additional terraced dwelling at 40 & 42, Scott Hill, Clayton West, Huddersfield, HD8 9PE. (Sub-Committee in accordance with Officer recommendation) (Dismissed) /60/93982/E - Outline application for residential dwellings at Land at, Edge Road, Thornhill Edge, Dewsbury, WF12 0QA. (Sub- Committee in accordance with Officer recommendation) (Dismissed)

2 /60/93908/E - Outline application for erection of 2 detached dwellings and associated works at Land Adj, Grange Moor Garage, 14, Wakefield Road, Grange Moor, Wakefield, WF4 4DS. Sub-Committee in accordance with Officer recommendation) (Dismissed) 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

3 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2014 by Anne Jordan BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 December 2014 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/14/ Parkfield Crescent, Mirfield, WF14 9HQ 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 Aubrey and Mrs Barbara Cooper against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council. The application Ref 2014/62/91648/E, dated 21 May 2014, was refused by notice dated 7 October The development proposed is extension of front dormer at first floor level to create additional bedroom. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. 7 Parkfield Crescent is a semi-detached bungalow with a dormer roof window on the front elevation. It sits in a street of bungalows of similar appearance, and although some of these have been discreetly altered these works do not detract from the strong uniformity of appearance in the streetscene. This is apparent in the regular spacing of dwellings, the strong building line, and the almost identical form and position of dormer windows which are centrally placed on the roofslope of each pair of dwellings. 4. The proposal would increase the width of the existing dormer to extend across almost the entire width of the roof. This would result in an addition of substantial size which would obscure the majority of the visible roofslope. As a result it would appear top heavy in relation to the modest scale of the host property, unbalancing the proportions of the dwelling and the existing symmetry of the pair of dwellings. 5. The proposal would be clearly visible in views along Parkfield Crescent and from the junction along Parkfield Way. Due to its size, and the extent to which it would project from the roofslope, it would form an incongruous feature in the streetscene, which would detract from the pleasing regularity of dwellings evident along the road.

4 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/14/ I am therefore of the view that the proposal fails to complement the character of the host property, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the objectives of policies D2, BE1 and BE15 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan It also conflicts with guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to secure high quality design that takes the opportunity to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. 7. I note the appellant s views in relation to other development of similar design, including that at Penistone Road, Waterloo, Huddersfield. I have not been advised of the circumstances of such development, but note that it is located a significant distance from the appeal site. I therefore cannot be sure that it is directly comparable to the appeal proposal. I also note the benefit the proposal would bring to the appellant by providing additional accommodation. However, this matter would not outweigh the harm which the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area. 8. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal. Anne Jordan INSPECTOR 2

5 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 November 2014 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 December 2014 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/A/14/ Scott Hill, Clayton West, Huddersfield HD8 9PE 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 Lance Fawcett against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Council. The application Ref 2013/62/93777/E was refused by notice dated 14 July The development proposed is the erection of dwelling on land adjacent to 36 Scott Hill, Clayton West, Huddersfield. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of 36 Scott Hill with particular regard to outlook and visual impact. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The proposal is to erect a new house that would attach to an approved development of 2 dwellings, thereby resulting in a terrace of 3 units, on vacant land that faces Scott Hill. The newly created terrace would stand roughly equidistant between the side elevation of a detached gatehouse style dwelling on one side, 36 Scott Hill, and that of a broadly matching pair of houses on the other, 44 and 46 Scott Hill. The differing design, scale, age and appearance of these adjacent properties exemplify the varied built form in the local area, which is predominantly residential in character. 4. The new addition would replace the single storey double garage at the side of the southernmost dwelling in the approved scheme, which is shown on the plans as plot 2. Although the proposal would have narrower front and rear elevations than the permitted garage, it would be significantly longer, taller and thus more substantive in built form primarily given the introduction of living accommodation on 2 levels above the ground floor. 5. The proposal would reflect the style and appearance of the approved dwellings with matching external materials and pattern of fenestration. It would align

6 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ with the building and rooflines of the approved dwelling on plot 2 to which it would attach. The size and shape of the new plot, with a modest-sized rear garden, would also be consistent with its counterparts in the same scheme. Furthermore, the stepped profile of the new terrace, in which the approved dwelling on plot 1 would be at a lower level than the others due to the sloping ground, would help to visually break down, its scale and mass. To my mind, sufficient space would be retained around the sides of the new terrace to ensure adequate visual separation with the properties on either side of it. 6. Nevertheless, the proposal would result in a terrace with 3 dwellings of similar appearance, each with a relatively narrow front elevation. These features, in combination with long ridge and eaves lines parallel to the road across almost the entire width of the site, would give a strong impression of a development that had been squeezed into a restricted plot. When seen from Scott Hill, in both directions, the proposal would appear to form part of an unusually intense form of 2-storey development in an area where other properties in the vicinity of the site appear to generally have wider frontages and, when seen from the road, seem to occupy more generous-sized plots. In that context, I consider that the appeal scheme would be perceived as an overdevelopment of the site and cramped in terms of layout. 7. During the site visit, I observed some examples of recent housing developments including the appellant s scheme on Church Street. However, these developments do not form part of the same street scene as the proposal and it is in the context of a more spacious pattern of development along Scott Hill in the vicinity of the site that the proposal would be visually read. 8. The proposed dwelling, like those on plots 1 and 2, would stand behind an expanse of hard surface for vehicle parking that would extend across most of the site s highway frontage. The parking area would include narrow grassed strips and the appellant states that the green space provided would exceed that associated with the previous use of the site. I also saw that a hard surface area for vehicle parking fronts the appellant s development at Church Street. Nevertheless, in this case, there would be very limited space for any meaningful landscaping to soften appearance of the new development. As such, vehicles and their hard surfaced parking spaces would visually dominate the new dwelling and the terrace to which it would belong, which is a far from ideal design solution. 9. For all of these reasons, I consider that the new addition would not be successfully assimilated into the local street scene and that the resultant terrace of which it would form part would be obtrusive. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. It advises that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. For the reasons given, that would be the case with the proposal before me. 10. Against that background, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the local area. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies D2, BE1 and BE2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan, (UDP). These policies aim to ensure that new development achieves a good quality of design, is in keeping with surrounding development and does not prejudice the character of the area. 2

7 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ Living conditions 11. The approved garage of the dwelling on plot 2, if implemented, would establish a substantial built form at ground floor level close to the shared boundary with No 36. The proposal would reduce the gap at 1 st floor level with the side elevation of No 36 by introducing additional built form. Nevertheless, the existing stone boundary wall of this neighbouring property would largely obscure views of the new development from the rear conservatory. The main direction of outlook to the east would be unaffected by the proposal. Furthermore, the rear conservatory occupies an elevated position in relation to the site due to the difference in ground levels. Taken together, it is my judgement that sufficient space would be retained to ensure that the proposal would not dominate outlook nor be so imposing as to be overbearing or oppressive to the occupiers of No The Council states that the gap between the new 2-storey flank wall and the rear conservatory of No 36 would fall short of its minimum acceptable distance, which is set out in UDP Policy BE12. This policy also notes that shorter distances than those specified will be acceptable if, amongst other things, permanent screening or level changes mean that there is no detriment to the occupiers of existing dwellings. The Council also appears to have applied the separation distances set out in this policy with some flexibility both to another aspect of this case and elsewhere to reflect local circumstances. 13. Taking these points into account, I conclude on this issue that the living conditions of the occupiers of No 36 would not be materially reduced by the appeal scheme. Consequently, there is no conflict with the planning policies to which the Council refers or those of Framework, insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. This favourable finding does not outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the first main issue. Other matters 14. The site is reasonably well connected with regular bus services running along Scott Hill. The site is available for development and the proposal would contribute towards the supply of housing, which the appellant states falls short of the minimum 5-year supply required by the Framework. I attach significant weight to these considerations in support of the appellant s case. However, the adverse impacts of the new development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole and those of the development plan. 15. Interested parties raise additional objections, notably with regard to highway safety. These are important matters and I have taken into account all of the evidence before me. However, given my findings in relation to the first main issue, these are not matters on which my decision has turned. Conclusion 16. Overall, for the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR 3

8 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2014 by Michael R Moffoot DipTP MRTPI DipMgt MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 December 2014 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/A/14/ Land at north side of Edge Road, Thornhill Edge, Dewsbury WF12 0QA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Mrs Dawn Smith against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Council. The application Ref: 2013/60/93982/E, dated 10 December 2013, was refused by notice dated 30 May The development proposed is redevelopment of former housing site for new residential units. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The application was made in outline form with all matters other than access reserved for future approval. A notional layout plan was submitted with the application but the appellant has made it clear that it is for indicative purposes only. I have considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are: (i) (ii) (iii) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework ); the effect of the proposed development on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt; and if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Inappropriate development 4. The appeal site comprises an elevated parcel of vacant land with frontage to Edge Road at a point where residential development gives way to sporadic housing and open countryside on the south side of Thornhill Edge. The notional layout plan envisages three dwellings with garaging accessed directly

9 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ from the highway together with an area of amenity space adjacent to a public footpath. 5. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt with the exception of certain categories of development. They include limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. 6. It is no part of the appellant s case that the proposal comprises limited infilling. However, there is general agreement, supported by documentary and other evidence, that the appeal site accommodated a number of residential properties up until the 1950s, when they were largely demolished under a slum clearance programme. The appellant submits that the site is therefore previously developed land and, as such, the proposal is compliant with the provisions of paragraph 89 of the Framework. 7. The Glossary at Annex 2 of the Framework describes previously developed land as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. However, it advises that this excludes, amongst other things, land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time. 8. At my visit I observed random piles of rubble, building materials, timber and plastic sheeting on the site. I also noted boundary walls and minor areas of stone and brickwork which appear consistent with the historical use of the land for housing some 60 years ago. However, given the paucity of these remains I am satisfied that any permanent structures or associated fixed surface infrastructure that may have existed on the land have blended into the landscape in the process of time. As such, the site does not comprise previously developed land and the proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Effect on openness and the visual amenity of the Green Belt 9. Residential development on the appeal site, in whatever form, would clearly involve a loss of openness, which is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt according to the Framework. The proposal would also consolidate built development on this part of Edge Road resulting in harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Furthermore, it would conflict with one of the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt, namely to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Other Considerations 10. The appellant has put forward a number of other considerations which, in her view, justify the scheme. It is submitted that the development of this windfall site for housing would contribute to the identified shortfall of housing land in the Borough and meet Government aspirations to significantly boost the supply of housing. However, paragraph 034 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the very special 2

10 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ circumstances justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. I therefore give this argument minimal weight in favour of the proposal. 11. The site may be prone to fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour but it could be cleared and made secure without its redevelopment for housing. Any improvements arising from the provision of public amenity space at the western end of the site would be negligible. Accordingly, I attach very limited weight to these arguments. The Green Belt balance 12. The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful and substantial weight is to be attached to such harm according to the Framework. There would also be loss of openness, encroachment and harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. There are no other considerations which clearly outweigh the totality of harm that would arise as a result of the development, and the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not therefore exist. Other Matters 13. The appellant contends that the boundaries of the site form a logical and permanent Green Belt boundary which the development would rationalise. However, the permanency of the boundary of the Green Belt is not a matter for review within the context of a s78 appeal. 14. I have seen no technical evidence to show that the development would compromise highway safety on Edge Road, and note that the Council s highways engineer offered no objections in principle to the proposal. Concerns regarding design and the density of development would be for consideration at the reserved matters stage if the appeal were to succeed. 15. I have also taken into account other concerns raised locally, including residential amenity, covenants on the land and recent clearance of foliage on the site. However, they do not add to my reasons for dismissing the appeal. Conclusions 16. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should fail. Michael R Moffoot Inspector 3

11 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 December 2014 by Michael R Moffoot DipTP MRTPI DipMgt MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 January 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/A/14/ Wakefield Road, Grange Moor, Wakefield WF4 4DS The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Robert Gunn against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Council. The application Ref: 2013/60/93908/E, dated 6 December 2013, was refused by notice dated 30 May The development proposed is to erect two five bedroom dwellings in traditional style with sustainable credentials and extensive site landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The application is made in outline form with permission sought at this stage for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Access is reserved for subsequent approval. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are: (i) (ii) (iii) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework ( the Framework ); the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area; and if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Inappropriate development 4. The appeal site comprises a rectangular parcel of grassland with frontage to the busy A642 Wakefield Road. The land is bounded by a large commercial garage building to the east, Woodside Farm to the west and extensive open countryside to the south. There is a restaurant and a garden centre on the opposite side of the road. The proposed dwellings would be arranged in

12 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ tandem on generous plots and would be substantial properties, providing five bedroomed accommodation over two floors. 5. The Framework advises that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt with the exception of specific types of development, including limited infilling in villages. This approach is broadly reflected in policy D13 of the adopted Kirklees Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which includes provision for infill development within existing settlements in the Green Belt where the site is small (normally sufficient for not more than two dwellings) and within an otherwise continuously built-up frontage. The supporting text to the policy states that Many small settlements lie within the green belt. They may contain small sites which could be developed without prejudice to the open character of the Green Belt. However, development will only be appropriate where it is genuinely small scale and will occupy a small gap in a definable frontage or a small site largely surrounded by development. 6. No reference is made to UDP policies which define settlements or settlement boundaries, and whilst the appeal site lies outside the inset for Grange Moor on the Proposals Map it is situated within a cluster of commercial and residential development that extends westwards and southwards from the Grange Moor roundabout. On this basis, the appellant submits that the proposal would comply with criterion (i) in policy D13 regarding infill development within existing settlements. 7. Although the layout plan shows two dwellings, the site is capable of accommodating significantly more than this number as it is considerably larger than those plots serving the majority of the properties to the east. As such, the site cannot reasonably be regarded as small for the purposes of policy D13. Furthermore, whilst the frontage to the east of the site up to the roundabout is arguably continuous, it is not to the west, consisting only of a barn and a dwelling with open countryside beyond. The proposal would not therefore amount to infill development within an existing settlement and would be contrary to policy D13. Furthermore, it cannot be regarded as limited infilling in a village as referred to in the Framework. The proposed dwellings would therefore be inappropriate development which the Framework advises is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Openness of the Green Belt and character and appearance of the area 8. The proposal would introduce two substantial buildings on to this presently undeveloped site. This would result in significant loss of openness, which the Framework states is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt. It would also undermine its purpose to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 9. The proposal would consolidate built development on this part of Wakefield Road and the scale of the dwellings would be wholly out of keeping with the predominantly tight-knit pattern of housing to the east of the site. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with relevant objectives in UDP policy BE2 which require new development to be in keeping with its surroundings in terms of scale, density and layout. 2

13 Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/A/14/ Other Considerations 10. The appellant has submitted other considerations in support of the proposal. It is contended that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land as required by the Framework and the proposal would contribute to the shortfall, and thus Government aspirations to boost significantly the supply of housing. However, the two dwellings proposed would make only a very modest contribution to housing land supply in the Borough and I accord the matter minimal weight in favour of the proposal. 11. Whilst the dwellings may incorporate sustainability credentials and local services and facilities be accessible from the site, these factors attract only very limited weight in support of the proposed development. The Green Belt balance 12. I find that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposal would also cause additional harm by reason of loss of openness, encroachment and detriment to the character and appearance of the area. The other considerations do not clearly outweigh this harm, and the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not therefore exist. Other Matters 13. The Council is also concerned about the implications of the proposal for trees along the site frontage which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. There is no doubt that the trees make an important contribution to the visual amenity of the area, and the access shown on the submitted drawings would be likely to require removal of one of them. However, approval for access is not sought at this stage and it may be that an alternative location on the frontage could be achieved which would prevent any tree loss. In the absence of any detailed information in this respect I am unable to reach a conclusion on the matter. 14. As to local concerns regarding the effects of the proposal on highway safety, I am satisfied that adequate access visibility could be achieved on the site frontage, and note that the Council s highways officer offered no objections in principle to the proposal subject to conditions. Conclusions 15. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should fail. Michael R Moffoot Inspector 3