Supplementary Planning Matters by D. Brennan - 12 June 2010

June, 2010
This supplement to my reports, Planning Matters, in the Society’s Newsletter gives a summary account of the Society’s representations on planning applications made to Sefton Council’s Planning and Economic Regeneration Department and to The Planning Inspectorate.

a. 43–43A Freshfield Road.- The third application for this site was for what in effect was two detached dwellings which had been given a facade to create the impression they were semidetached by the bricking in of the narrow gap between them. We objected to this proposal on the grounds that the design lacked coherence. Fortunately, the case officer took a similar view and prevailed on the applicant to rethink the design.
The plans eventually approved are for a true semi-detached property, albeit with a gap to the rear and, for the most part, the property now accords with the second application.
A worrying aspect of the original proposal was that each dwelling would have had a large basement to serve as an underground garage. The water table in the vicinity is high and the excavation of a deep hole will significantly affect the water content of the sand which comprises the neighbouring land; this has the potential to affect adversely the stability of the adjacent Victorian house and the nearby road and utilities. We urged that a hydrological survey should be required as part of the planning approval process, but unfortunately Sefton’s UDP makes no provision for such a requirement. In the finally approved plans, the basement area has been considerably reduced in comparison to what was initially intended, but the associated problems must remain a matter of obvious concern to neighbouring residents. Building Regulations will provide neighbours with some protection, but, in the event of problems, owners will have to rely principally on the civil law.

b. Embassy Building, Green Lane.- We have been informed by the Council that their Enforcement Notice arising from our complaint concerning the owner’s advertisement placed at the perimeter of the building’s curtilage will not be prosecuted. The reason given is that the owners have removed the white cladding boards, which have so long defaced the building, and are further improving the building’s appearance. Given the changes which have been made to the building, we are not unhappy with that decision and we very much hope that the owners will continue to be responsive to the wishes of officers (and ourselves!) with respect to the appearance and condition of this important building which features prominently in the Green Lane Conservation Area.

c. Total Timber, 90 Stephensons Way.- The Council’s refusal of retrospective planning permission for the retention of two large identical hoardings mounted on each side of the entrance gate was appealed to The Planning Inspectorate. We made a submission to the Inspectorate in support of the Council, reiterating our arguments for opposing the original application. The Inspector, in dismissing the appeal, upheld all the Council’s (and our) criticisms of the hoardings.

d. 25 Wicks Crescent.- The application was for a single storey extension which would have extended across the entire frontage of the dwelling. The situation was complicated by the fact that some other properties in the vicinity have front extensions, but none is as adversely prominent in the street scene as this proposal would have been. We suggested a modification of the proposal which would have given it a more acceptable appearance, but, failing that, we urged that the application be refused. The application was called in to Planning Committee by a Borough Councillor and there was a petition in support of the applicant; the officer recommendation was for refusal. In the event, the application was withdrawn just prior to the meeting of Planning Committee. A second application for a revised design has been approved.

e. Former Dairy, 5 Marsh Brows.- The application is for a four story block of twelve apartments on a very narrow site at the head of the close; the site is bounded on the west by Formby railway station and car park and is a close neighbour of two large electricity substations. The rectangular design is very modern and strongly resembles that of a similar building proposed in 2008 for 86 Victoria Road, which was refused planning permission. We opposed the proposal on several grounds, chief amongst them the belief that the building would be much too large for the site and would be completely out of character with the street scene, which it would dominate by reason of its height, which would be in excess of that of the roof ridge of Hillary Court, and the fact that its accommodation would be at a significantly higher level than that of Hillary Court. We also complained that the amenity area of only 160 m2 was unacceptably small compared to the minimum of 360 m2 required by policy; as a result, a second amenity area of 110 m2 was added, but we continued to complain that the two areas together, at 270 m2, was still too small and that, anyway, both areas were of very low quality (the planners conceded they will need acoustic protection, but sought to argue the presence of balconies in some of the flats should be counted as compensation for inadequate amenity space!). Regrettably, our objections were to no avail and the application was approved, but subject to an exceptionally large number of onerous conditions.

f. 75 Freshfield Road.- The application was for an all but completed new boundary wall with wooden boarding infill panels to the front of the dwelling to a maximum height of 2.1 m. We opposed the application, reiterating our now familiar arguments against such excluding structures, viz. they confer a depressing and alienating ambience on a neighbourhood, especially when allowed to proliferate along an extended section of road. We ask that passers-by should be afforded a view of the front grounds and elevation of a property, a principle which has been endorsed by a planning inspector. We suggested that a satisfactory solution would be to have wrought iron panels between the brick piers after the manner of the front boundary treatments of near neighbours. On the advice of the case officer, amended plans have been submitted adopting our suggestion and they have been approved.

g. 1 York Close.- The application concerned a group of trees comprising multi stemmed Sycamore trees in the front garden of the dwellinghouse; they are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Permission was sought to reduce the height of the trees by 50%, because it was claimed they overshadowed the property. In opposing the application, we rejected this claim on the grounds that the trees are located to the east/east north east of the property and are well spaced from it, so they will shade the property for only the first few hours after sunrise and then not all of it. We also argued that, because the trees occupy a prominent corner site, they make a significant contribution to the street scene, which is very agreeably endowed with a varied arboreal presence. We said that to reduce their height by 50% would be to mutilate them and significantly degrade the street scene in the vicinity, but we agreed that they would benefit from the attentions of a professional tree surgeon. The application was approved subject to the conditions that the reduction in height is restricted to 25-30% (2.0 2.5m) and selective thinning was limited to 15%.

h. Land to rear of St. Peter’s Vicarage Path.- The application was to fell the end tree of a line of four poplar trees and to prune the rest; permission for the work was necessary because the trees are in the Green Lane Conservation Area. The justification for the application was that the trees were overshadowing gardens (not dwellings). We said we did not believe it is reasonable to complain of the overshadowing of gardens – that is what trees in residential settings can be expected to do. We pointed out no new harmful factor has arisen over many years to justify the felling of anyone of the trees; we also argued that it is now generally agreed that we need trees in our living spaces to sustain wildlife, mitigate against adverse effects anticipated from climate change and contribute to visual amenity; however, we did agree the trees would benefit from being tidied up. We emphasized that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Green Lane Conservation Area is its generous tree cover, and that alone was sufficient justification for the preservation of all these trees. Sadly, our arguments did not prevail. Permission was given for the end tree to be felled; in justification, it was claimed that, because there were many other trees in the vicinity, the loss of this one tree would be of no great significance, particularly as the location was relatively private. To compensate for the loss of the tree, it was ordered that an Alder and an Ash should be planted within the Red Squirrel Buffer Zone.

i. 21 Victoria Road.- The application was for the variation of a condition on an earlier planning approval; approval was now sought for a redesigned vehicle splay which would involve a flashing light, a buzzer and two mounted mirrors – the need for these devices arises from the great height of the brick wall on the front boundary. We opposed the application, which the Officer Report recommended for approval, arguing that it should not be necessary, on a straight section of road in a quiet residential area, to resort to such devices as essential aids to safe egress from a premises. Apart from any other consideration, the mirrors would be vulnerable to malicious and accidental damage, and the buzzer would be liable to failure. We said that the need for such devices is indicative of the fundamental inadequacy of the proposed design of the splay and we urged that the design should be re-thought so no such improvised and insecure solutions are necessary. The application was called in to Planning Committee by a local Councillor and the Committee made a site visit. The application was withdrawn but has recently been replaced by a further application which in essence is the same as the first and of which we have reiterated our criticisms. The decision is pending.

j. 4 College Avenue.- The application was for the erection of a small detached two storey dwelling of very modern design on a confined site between two existing properties after demolition of the outbuilding attached to one of them; there was to be a new access onto College Path, access gates and a new front boundary wall to a maximum height of 1.8 m. Given the character of the other buildings in the vicinity, we were critical of the strongly contrasting design of the proposed building. Nor were we happy with the restricted nature of the site, bearing in mind that the proposed building, being a self contained entity, would not occupy the site in a way comparable to that of the similarly sized existing building which it would replace, because the latter is integral with the neighbouring dwelling. In relation to the 1.8 m brick wall proposed for the front boundary, we reiterated our usual arguments against such structures and, specifically to this location, pointing out that the entrance to neighbouring 4 College Avenue provides the passer-by with a pleasantly open view of the front grounds and elevation of that premises and urging that the entrance to the proposed premises should do likewise. The application was refused for reasons consistent with our criticisms.

k. Poplar Lodge, 15B Green Lane.- The application is for a two storey extension at the front and a part first floor and part two storey extension at the side of the property. The front elevation of the existing building is of simple regular proportions and, were it not for the offset of the front entrance, a fair degree of symmetry; these features give the building a restrained, dignified appearance. By contrast, the two storey extension, by reason of its substantial height and mass arising from its approximately 1.5 metre forward projection from the original building and its dramatically extended unsymmetrical roof line reaching right down to the level of the flat garage roof, would, in our view, confer on the extended building a strongly featured and assertive appearance in a markedly different style to that of the original building, a change which would be emphasized by the proposed fenestration, which also would be markedly different from that of the original building. We opposed the application on the grounds that policy requires an extension should not change the character of a property, as this proposal would, that the change would adversely affect the street scene in the Green Lane Conservation Area and that the setting of the neighbouring Grade II listed building would be harmed. Incomprehensibly, the Conservation Officer, without any justification, held that the proposal would enhance the character of the Conservation Area and would not have a significantly adverse affect on the setting of the listed building. With that assessment, approval of the application inevitably followed.

l. Land to the rear of 63 Liverpool Road.- The application is for a new close of four pairs of semidetached houses; it is a variation of an approved scheme, but now the dwellings would have a larger footprint and smaller gardens. We have opposed the proposal on the grounds that the layout of the close would be unacceptably cramped. The front elevation of each unit would be little more than one car length from the road (there would be no footpath on the south side of the road). Further, when two cars are parked in front of a property, there would be no path for pedestrian access to the property. Worryingly, anyone accessing the boot of such a parked car would have to stand in the road. Further, Sefton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing Development recommends that rear gardens should have an area of at least 70 m2, whereas all of the units would have rear garden areas less than this figure and, for six of them, the areas would be less than 43 m2. Having in mind that the guidelines for amenity space set out in the SPG were disregarded in the case of the development the site of the former dairy in Brows Marsh, we strongly urged that the SPG document should be respected as an important material planning consideration and that its modest provisions should not be lightly disregarded. We said that the application should be rejected for this reason alone. However, we gave in addition other reasons why the proposal should be refused, not least of them being a street scene of unacceptably poor quality, because the unrelieved linear layout of the units and the close proximity of the 1.8 m fence along the whole of the north side of the access road would make for an unremittingly dreary prospect for both occupiers and visitors alike. In response to this criticism, the footprint of the houses was reduced and the garden sizes correspondingly increased, with the result that the average garden size was now just over 70 m2, although the areas of only two of the gardens conform to policy. Unhappily, the scheme has been approved on that basis.

m. 31 Vicarage Road.- The application was for permission to reduce by up to 50% five sycamore trees and two cherry trees at the rear of the dwelling house, all subject to a Tree Preservation Order. We argued that these trees make a significant contribution to the agreeable street scene as observed by someone in Vicarage Close or approaching along Vicarage Road. We agreed the trees would benefit from the attentions of a professional tree surgeon, but we said to reduce them in height by up to 50% would seriously diminish their contribution to the visual amenity of the area. We asked that the reduction should be limited to 20% to 30% and the application was approved on that basis.

n. 86 Victoria Road.- This was the third application for this site since September 2008. The proposal was for the demolition of the former children’s home and the erection of a new 3-storey building comprising eight self contained apartments ranging from two to four bedrooms. We were highly critical of the proposals on several grounds: (i) the zinc roof, with distinctive raised seams, would give the building a prominent but inappropriate and disagreeable presence in the street scene, with its industrial appearance being exacerbated by long slender stainless steel chimney pots. We also questioned the effectiveness of the chimneys in some weather conditions; (ii) the very large expanse of the roof of the 2-storey wing projecting from the rear of the main building would be excessively dominant and that it would have had a particularly looming and overbearing presence when observed from the neighbouring property in Shireburn Road. We asked that this wing be redesigned or dispensed with altogether; (iii) the very high density would contrast strongly with the low density prevailing in the neighbourhood and would be contrary to policy; (iv) the accommodation would be excessively cramped with insufficient space for items of furniture which are normally considered essential in a family home and there would also be a severe lack of general storage space; and (v) there was no information as to how the building would be heated other than by the provision of a single fireplace for each unit. The proposals have been withdrawn.

o. Larkhill Farm, Wicks Lane.- The proposal is for the area presently occupied by the access road adjacent to the Wicks Lane footpath/bridleway to be landscaped, with the formation of a head-high earth mound along a substantial section of its length. This new boundary treatment, together with the remainder of the boundary treatment, would result in a totally screened site. Once again, we have argued the case that it is no longer acceptable for passers-by to be prevented from sharing to some degree the visual amenity of premises. In this particular case, there is the further consideration that the site lies within the Green Belt, the principle attribute of which is openness. We have complained that the applicant has given no explanation of how the proposals can be reconciled to Green Belt policy and objectives. The decision is pending.

Desmond Brennan

Posted by: Dr Reg Yorke - on: 12 June 2010