PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
REPORT ON PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED
Best Value Performance Indicator 204
Planning Appeals: The number of planning appeal decisions allowed against the
authority’s decision to refuse on planning applications, as a percentage of the number of
planning appeals against refusals of planning applications.
National PI Target:
Local PI Target:
Less than 40% of appeals upheld
Less than 35% of appeals upheld
Current Performance
31.58%
APPLICATION No:
08/57082/HH
APPELLANT:
Mr C Gruner
APPEAL SITE:
16 Hanover Gardens Salford M7 4FQ
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a single storey side/rear extension together
with stepped access to the front and erection of 4m high
trellis along the side boundary.
WARD:
Kersal
OFFICER
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
APPEAL DECISION:
Appeal upheld
DECIDED ON:
24 November 2009
Three applications are of relevance to this enforcement appeal which have been
submitted with regard the erection of single storey side and rear extensions to the
property at 16 Hanover Gardens, Salford.
The first application was approved in July 2007 reference 07/54328/HH under delegated
powers, and relates to the erection of a single story side extension to the property. The
extension had a flat roof with a maximum height of 3.2m, and was to be constructed
using facing materials to match that of the existing dwelling, with a felt roof.
The second application was a part-retrospective planning application reference
1
08/55899/HH which was refused at the Salford City Council Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel Meeting on the 5th June 2008.
At the time, the extension had been partially constructed, and comprised a single storey
extension to the side and rear extension which wrapped around the dwelling.
The front part of the extension was to have a height at the eaves of 3.7 metres, and height
to the ridge of 5 metres. The remainder of the extension was to be 3.8m high with a flat
roof.
The members of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel who determined the
application on the 5th June 2008 carefully balanced the planning issues, including all
material planning considerations and formed the opinion that the application should be
refused for the following reason;
The extension by virtue of its size, siting, design and appearance does not respect the
character of the existing property and would be an incongruous feature in the street
scene contrary to policies DES1 and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan.
The third application was approved at the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel
Meeting on the 4th December 2008, application reference 08/57082/FUL.
The third application was submitted following substantial pre-application discussions to
produce an acceptable solution at the site, which addressed the concerns raised in relation
to the previous application (above) which was refused.
The application was similar to the previous permissions in that it comprised the retention
of side/rear extensions to the property, which would be flush with the front of the
dwelling. The erection of a 4 metre high trellis was also included as part of the scheme
with planting to assist in the screening of the extension
Significantly in the revised scheme, the height of the front of the extension was to be
reduced by 1m, to reduce the steep slope of the roof of the existing structure and to give
an overall height of 4m,
It was also proposed to convert an access ramp that had been constructed to the front of
the property into a stepped access.
Following the approval of the above application in December 2008, the revised roofslope
profile and planting to the trellis have were not implemented. Additionally, the stepped
access to the property has not been implemented.
Enforcement Notice
An enforcement notice was served on the property on the 14th of May in which the
following options were given to the property owner, these were
1. Remove the single storey side/rear extension or,
2. Implement planning permission 08/57082/HH
2
This Notice took effect on 12th June 2009, and gave the property owner 3 months to
implement the works.
Further to the issue of the enforcement notice, the applicant lodged an appeal against the
enforcement notice.
The applicant lodged the appeal on the following grounds
a) That the extension should be granted planning permission
f) That the steps required to comply with the requirements of the notice are
excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections
g) That the time given to comply with the notice was too short
Appeal
An informal hearing was held on the 11th of November.
The inspector identified that the main issue was the effect of the unauthorised extension
upon the character and appearance of both the appeal premises and Hanover Gardens
The inspector noted that the most significant difference between the originally approved
scheme (07/54328/HH), and the scheme refused in 2008 (08/55899/HH) was the monopitch roof which had been constructed over the front section of the extension, and that the
council had accepted this at the hearing.
The inspector commented that, when the property was viewed from the side, that the
height difference between mono-pitch and flat roof sections of the extension was readily
apparent. The extension projected forward of the building line of properties on Hanover
Gardens, and is at a higher level than adjacent properties, so can be seen from some
distance to the south
It was noted that from this angle, that the extension with a mono-pitch roof looked
incongruous. However when the extension was viewed from the front, the pitch and
materials of the roof matched that of the existing property, and made an important
contribution to the harmonisation of the extension with the main dwelling, and that the
extension sat comfortably within the streetscene when viewed from this direction
On balance, the inspector noted that the mono-pitch roof brought benefits to the
streetscene, as well as some visual discordance, but stated that the benefits outweighed
the limited harm that the side elevation of the extension caused to the appearance and
character of the main dwelling, and Hanover Gardens.
The inspector noted that the schemes that had been granted planning permission were a
material consideration, and that the scheme had an irregular shaped floor plan that
wrapped around the building, which would create difficulties in the formation of a
suitable roof.
The inspector stated that a flat roof would be the most visually unobtrusive scheme, but
that it would not be in character with the house, the inspector also noted that the most
3
recently approved scheme (08/57082/FUL), which would have a shallow mono-pitch
roof, would also be unlikely to be constructed in materials, and in a character to match
that of the main dwelling, and that neither scheme would necessarily present an
improvement to what had been constructed.
The inspector noted that reasons for issuing the enforcement notice stated that the colour
of the bricks of the extension, did not match that of the main house, but that this was not
pursued at the hearing by the council (no such request for alternative brick type/colour
having been made in the approved scheme ref. 08/57082/FUL ). The inspector considered
that the scheme was acceptable, and that issues raised by the council regarding the
removal of the fascia boards from the extension was a detail for the appellant’s taste, and
did not concern himself further with the design of this element.
Inspectors Conclusion
The inspector concluded that the scheme was not contrary to DES1 and DES8 of the
Unitary Development Plan, and that the appeal should succeed on ground (a).and that
planning permission should be granted. The inspector drew support from the 15 letters of
support of the local residents.
The inspector noted that there was insufficient space on the appellants land for the
installation of a trellis and planting as in the approved scheme ref. 08/57082/FUL, and
held that it would be inappropriate for the applicant to carry out work on their own land
to implement this. The Inspector did note that the a trellis, and planting had been
implemented on the neighbours land, but that this was on land outside of the appellants
control.
The inspector did think it was necessary to implement a condition regarding the obscure
glazing of the windows on the southern elevation of the extension, but that no further
conditions were necessary.
The Inspector allowed the appeal with respect to ground (a) and directed the enforcement
notice to be quashed.
APPLICATION No:
09/57492/FUL
4
APPELLANT:
Mr And Mrs A Hall
APPEAL SITE:
Land Adjacent To 1 Hatherop Close Eccles M30 7NR
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached dwelling
WARD:
Winton
OFFICER
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse
APPEAL DECISION:
Appeal dismissed
DECIDED ON:
23 November 2009
On the 20th May 2009 planning permission was refused by Salford City Council for the
erection of a two storey detached dwelling on a plot of land adjacent to 1 Hatherop Close
in Eccles. The application was refused on the basis that –
The proposed dwellinghouse by virtue of its scale, design, boundary treatment and
orientation within the streetscene would be out of character with the surrounding area
and therefore contrary to policy DES1 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
The proposed dwellinghouse by virtue of its scale and position within the site would have
an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the current and any future residents of no. 1
Hatherop Close and therefore is contrary to DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
The applicant exercised their right of appeal. The appellant did not consider that there
were any issues with regards to the siting and design of the proposed dwelling. The
appellant also considered that the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable
relationship with the neighbouring dwellings as there would be no overlooking to 1
Hatherop from the gable, the proposed dwelling has been sited to minimise
overshadowing given that the dwelling only runs along 25% of the boundary with no.1
Hatherop and both 1 Hathrop and the new dwelling would have gardens that are larger
than the majority of the other properties on the estate.
The inspector noted the prominent nature of the site, at the entrance to a modern open
plan residential estate of detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the
highways. They noted how the proposed dwelling would be situated close to the back of
the footway in a position where it would appear overbearing and harmful to the openness
of the area, before stating that the feeling of oppressiveness would be compounded by the
design of the property, in particular the large areas of brickwork on the northern and
eastern elevations. Furthermore the Inspector expressed concerns over the proposed
materials and the impact the development could have on the trees on site.
5
With regard to amenity the Inspector considered that the 20m separation to the dwellings
at the rear was, in combination with the tree belt, sufficient to ensure the amenity of the
residents on Henty Close would not be affected by the proposal. Similarly the Inspector
did not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the amenity the
occupants of 1 Hatherop Close currently enjoy as the level of separation, the extent to
which the dwelling would run parallel to the common boundary and the offset between
the two units would be sufficient to ensure there would not be any undue loss of privacy
or overshadowing.
The inspector therefore concluded that while the proposal does not raise any issues with
amenity the proposal would be contrary to policy DES1 of the adopted UDP as it would
fail to respond to its physical context or the character of the area within which it would be
located, dismissing the appeal on this basis.
6
7