Download additional observations

AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIRECTOR
OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL
PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
MATTERS
PART I (AMENDMENTS)
SECTION 1 : APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2008
16th October
APPLICATION No:
08/56765/FUL
APPLICANT:
Astley Park Estates
LOCATION:
10 Leinster Road Swinton M27 5YG
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and outbuilding and
erection of 3 terraced and 2 semi-detached houses
WARD:
Swinton South
OBSERVATIONS:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing this report, neighbours have verbally claimed that question 8 has been
incorrectly completed and that the applicant has not carried
out any neighbour and community consultation although the
application forms claim that this has taken place.
The applicant has submitted a sustainability checklist and has confirmed that the
development will be constructed using sustainable methods and locally sourced materials.
The applicant has also confirmed that all hardstanding areas will be porous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-1-
APPLICATION No:
08/56767/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Daniel Holmes
LOCATION:
64 Victoria Road Salford M6 8EF
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a single storey side/rear extension
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing this report a further letter has been received from the occupiers of 32
Orlanda Avenue. The letter requests a postponement of the panel meeting as neither the
occupiers or their representatives can attend the panel meeting. The neighbours and
applicant were informed on the 19th September that due to the changes to house extension
permitted development rights the application was being re-assessed. The letter indicated
that the earliest date of decision would be 15th October 2008. Unfortunately there was a
typing error in the letter and it should have read the 16th October 2008. The letter was an
informative and was not the official letter inviting neighbours to the panel meeting; it
indicated that if there were any changes to the current view they would be notified in due
course. In accordance with procedure once the agenda and the report had been agreed the
relevant parties were notified that the application would appear at panel. In the first
instance they were notified by telephone and email, then by a letter in accordance with
procedure. Interested parties are formally notified of panel dates once the agenda has
been agreed. Given the complexity of the history of this site it would not have been
appropriate to advise of the recommendation until the agenda had been agreed and was
available for public inspection.
A request has been made to the applicant to defer the panel meeting until 6 th November
-2-
2008. The response from the applicant was that given the length of time it has taken to
process the application and their current living arrangements they could not afford a
further postponement for another 3 weeks.
In addition a number of emails have been received from Councillor Ainsworth. The
issues raised have been summarised as follows.
Requests a deferment to consider the implied LPA interpretation of the change of
legislation.
This issue is considered above.
Requests a number of conditions in the event of recommending the application for
approval; the re-siting of the garage window on the side elevation to reduce
impact on privacy and light disturbance; soft landscaping to be provided to the
gable of the garage to reduce the impact; to ensure that the development as
completed is no wider than the existing width including gutter detail.
As detailed below it is not considered that an obscure glazed garage window would have
an unacceptable impact on privacy or light disturbance to the occupiers of No.32 Orlanda
Avenue. Garages are not habitable rooms and it is considered that obscure glazing is
adequate. A condition has been attached to ensure that the window would remain
permanently obscured. The issue of landscaping has been discussed with the applicant.
It has been agreed that a condition be attached that requires the submission and
implementation of a landscaping scheme along the boundary with No.32. The applicant
is not in agreement to landscaping being attached to the building itself. “ In accordance
with procedure an informative has been attached detailing the approved plans. An
additional condition has been attached requiring the submission and approval of any
additional guttering detail if it is to be attached to the building.
The report is amended to reflect the implication of unlawful development carried
out to accommodate the development as set out in Article 3 (5) of the GPDO
which states “in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing
building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are
unlawful.”
This reference is to unlawful construction. As the demolition of the chimneys is not
“construction” it has no bearing on permitted development in this case.
Consider that the development would not be permitted under the current GPDO as
the development includes the alteration to the roof of the dwelling in respect of
the demolished chimneys, which is exempt from Class A. Class A states that
development would not be permitted if “it would consist of or include the
installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe or
an alteration to any part of the roof.”
-3-
The GPDO specifically separates chimneys from the roof. Therefore consideration
would only be required to be given as to whether the development included the “the
installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe.” It is
important to note that Class G of the GPDO allows the installation, alteration or
replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe, if it does not exceed the highest part
of the roof by more than 1m.
Counsel advice was sought in relation as to whether the demolition of part of the original
dwelling could be considered to be acceptable under the superseded Class A. Counsel
considered “Class A of Part 1 provides permission for “the enlargement, improvement or
other alteration of a dwellinghouse.” Counsel previously considered
“ It is questionable whether this class applies at all to demolition. Whilst partial
demolition can literally be said to amount to an alteration to the dwellinghouse a
reasonable argument can be raised that in this context “alteration” should be interpreted
in the context of the other elements of the description i.e. enlargement and improvement
and clearly partial demolition is the opposite of an enlargement. Furthermore the
limitations placed upon Class A in paragraph A1 are again all in the context of adding
something to the property rather than making a reduction such as would be involved in
partial demolition.”
In light of previous Counsel opinion it is considered that the installation, alteration or
replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe would not include demolition. Class
G implies that alteration etc refers to construction and not removal. In addition the
Council’s Solicitor does not consider that removal, without replacement, of a chimney
etc stops a development from being permitted development.
Observes that the report considers “fallback” to be the most important factor in
determining this application and considers the report should mention the
protection of neighbour amenity is an equally valid materials consideration.
It is considered the report adequately deals with the material planning considerations
including the impact on neighbouring occupiers.
A condition should be attached to any permission removing remaining permitted
development rights.
In light of this request advice was sought from the Council’s Solicitor. The advice states
that one of the tests for a valid condition is necessity. In other words, in the absence of
such a condition, would the application be recommended for refusal? As per paragraph
15 of Circular 11/95: The use of Conditions. Another test is relevance to the
development. The condition would need to be related to the work for which approval has
been sought. In other words, would permitting this development effectively make further
development on site within the new permitted development limits unacceptable. In
respect of this advice it would be unreasonable to attach a condition removing permitted
development rights from the property.
-4-
Current permitted development rights do not allow a two storey rear extension to be built
within 7m of any boundary of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse facing the rear wall of the
dwellinghouse. Given the shape of the application site and proximity of the rear wall to
the rear side boundaries, the site would not accommodate a two storey rear extension in
excess of 7m from these boundaries.
An Article 4 Direction is submitted to the Secretary of State to remove permitted
development rights.
With regards to the Local Planning Authorities powers under Article 3 and 4 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). Permitted
development rights are provided by Article 3 of the (GPDO). This allows certain types of
development to proceed without the need for planning permission.
Article 4 Directions are issued by the Council in circumstances where specific control
over development is required, primarily where the character of an area of acknowledged
importance would be threatened. They are therefore more commonly, but not solely,
applied to Conservation Areas. To date only one Article 4 direction exists within Salford
and this affects the Mines Rescue Station Conservation Area in Worsley.
Permitted development rights withdrawn by an Article 4 Direction are only considered in
exceptional circumstances and will rarely be justified unless there is a real and specific
threat i.e. there is reliable evidence to suggest that permitted development is likely to take
place which would damage an interest of acknowledged importance and which should
therefore be brought within full planning control in the public interest.
Circular 9/95: General Permitted Development Order Consolidation 1995 paragraph 9 of
Annex D states that restrictions on householder development, beyond that applicab;e in
conservation areas, should normally be made only where the dwellinghouse itself or the
locality is of a particular high quality.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3
months of the date of permission. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and
shrubs to be planted along the boundary with no.32 Orlanda Avenue, and shall be
carried out within 12 months of the date of the permission unless otherwise agreed in
writing.
2. No guttering or fascia detail shall be attached the side elevation of the garage without
the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
-5-
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005B
2. Standard Reason R005B
-6-