Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 January 2022 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 February 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/W/21/3282963 Rear Of 107 Marton Road, Bridlington YO16 7PX • 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 Christopher Graily against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref 20/02181/PLF, dated 9 July 2020, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2021. • The development proposed was originally described as ‘Change of use and alteration of existing garage to detached bungalow, and retention of existing garage as joiners workshop and retention of outbuildings for garage and general storage’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The proposal includes the retention of the joiners workshop and outbuildings for garage and general storage purposes. However, the works to create the proposed dwelling have not been undertaken. I am therefore dealing with the appeal, in part, retrospectively. Main Issues 3.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: • The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular reference to outlook, light, noise and disturbance; • The living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed development with particular reference to outlook and outdoor amenity space; • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • Highway safety along Marton Road. Reasons Neighbouring properties Joinery use 4. The appeal site is located in an area set back from Marton Road and whilst there was intermittent traffic noise in the background it did not dominate during my site visit. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: • The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular reference to outlook, light, noise and disturbance; • The living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed development with particular reference to outlook and outdoor amenity space; • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • Highway safety along Marton Road. Reasons Neighbouring properties Joinery use 4. The appeal site is located in an area set back from Marton Road and whilst there was intermittent traffic noise in the background it did not dominate during my site visit. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/21/3282963 5. The joinery workshop would be used by the appellant who would also occupy the proposed dwelling. As such, there would be times where the workshop would be used in connection with the dwelling. However, it would be used commercially for the appellant’s business, and the application has been submitted for non-residential floor space, resulting in a mix of uses within the overall planning unit. 6. The appellant’s Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) states that a significant adverse impact on neighbours would be unlikely on the basis that tools are not operating more than 10 times per hour and the forklift truck is not operating more than once per hour. Information is provided of the noise characteristics of individual machines including a table saw, bench drill, router, chop saw and the operations of the forklift truck. However, I do not have full details of the other sources of noise typically associated with a joinery use including, amongst other things, hand drilling, screwing, hammering, sanding, use of planers and hand sawing. 7. Even if the tools are 240v, the consideration of the commercial use must be considered as a whole.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, the data for the forklift truck is a snapshot of the likely sources of noise externally from the movement of materials and any other associated work within the yard has not been fully captured in the NIA. It is the cumulative effects of such activity in this distinctly residential setting which has the potential to significantly harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 8. Whilst the workshop door maybe closed at times, a condition requiring the door to remain closed during works would not be enforceable in practice particularly in the summer months or when ventilation is needed. In any case, this would not overcome my concerns regarding the cumulative effects of the joinery business in this residential area. 9. The Council have submitted evidence of recordings made at No 105A Marton Road (No 105A) indicating other sources of noise associated more generally at the property. Whilst it cannot be verified whether the source was in connection with the business or with regards to other work at the site, it nonetheless adds to my concerns that insufficient evidence has been provided. 10.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision As such, I find there to be insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the non- residential use would not be harmful to the occupiers of nearby dwellings in terms of noise and disturbance. Proposed dwelling 11. The proposed dwelling would be converted from the garage and attached workshop building positioned to the rear of the site. Here it has a close physical relationship with No 107 Marton Road (No 107), No 105A and Nos 17 and 19 Redwood Close (No 17 and No 19). 12. There would be a small increase in footprint, however the bulk of the changes would be from the alterations to the roof, where the increased height and change in form would be evident to varying degrees from the neighbouring properties. 13. No 17 and 19 have small rear gardens and the existing structure runs adjacent to and is prominent from the gardens. The alterations would result in a much greater bulk than the existing flat roof near the boundary. Despite the pitch https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/21/3282963 tapering away from the boundaries, given the particularly small sized gardens associated with No 17 and 19, the increased bulk of the proposed roof would create an unduly hemmed in feeling and sense of enclosure to the detriment of the enjoyment of these gardens. 14. From No 105A the roof pitch would follow the existing roof’s pitch, such that the built form of the new roof would taper away and be no closer than the existing structure. This would moderate the effects on outlook and light to the ground floor window on the side of No 105A and its rear garden. Moreover, No 105A has a large private garden amenity space on its southern side away from the proposed dwelling which would remain unaffected by the proposed roof form. 15. The subdivision of the plot would result in the reduction in size of the amenity space associated with No 107. I have no substantive evidence that this would fall short of any set standards and, from all that I saw, there would remain reasonable useable external amenity space. There would be comings and goings associated with the proposed dwelling past the side of No 107. However, this is not dissimilar to other properties nearby.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, the access drive would be reasonably wide, and the movements associated with the dwelling would not be significant. 16. Drawing the above together, the proposal would result in significant harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular reference to noise and disturbance and the occupiers of No 17 and 19 with particular reference to outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document 2016 (LP) and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (the Framework). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure good standards of living conditions for existing occupants. Future occupiers 17. The proposed dwelling would have one main bay window serving the open plan lounge, kitchen/dining room providing outlook. However, given the depth of this room it would be the lounge area that would benefit from the outlook most. The utility room would also be served with windows providing outlook, otherwise, windows would be high level or utilising roof lights.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision As such, the emphasis on the bay window as the main source of outlook would mean there would be very little meaningful outlook throughout the property as a whole. 18. There would be an area of amenity space between the workshop building and proposed dwelling, although it is unclear how the external space would be divided between the residential and non-residential uses. Nonetheless, it would be a small dwelling and there would be space within the overall plot, such that even with the joinery use future occupiers would have access to useable external space. 19. Concluding on this matter, although I am satisfied that there would be sufficient external amenity space, the proposed dwelling would have inadequate outlook, such that there would be a poor standard of living conditions for the future occupants of this property. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the LP and paragraph 130 of the Framework. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure good standards of living conditions for future occupants. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/21/3282963 Character and appearance 20. This part of Marton Road is characterised by residential properties positioned toward the front near the road with long gardens extending to the north. Although not prominent in public views, the joinery activities are an incongruous form of development in this distinctly residential setting. In this regard, the positioning of the joinery workshop albeit, as a small commercial activity, does not harmonise with the prevailing residential character of the area. 21. There are other dwellings located to the rear in tandem with frontage dwellings, including immediately to the west at No 105A. As such, a proposed dwelling to the rear would not be at odds with the established pattern of housing. Moreover, there would be space between the buildings within the site, such that the proposal would not appear unacceptably cramped. However, this does not outweigh or overcome my concerns in relation to the introduction of the joinery use within this residential area. 22. I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the LP and the Framework, insofar as they relate to this main issue. These seek, amongst other things, high quality design, having regard to the specific characteristics of the site’s wider context and the character of the surrounding area. Highway safety 23. Marton Road is a busy road and vehicles reversing out onto it would have the potential to be a risk to highway safety. 24. The proposed ground floor layout plan shows space to the rear for a single vehicle, although it is stated in the grounds of appeal that there is space for more. The delivery of materials and removal of finished products associated with the joinery business is currently undertaken by a Light Goods Vehicle or large passenger vehicle, sometimes with a trailer. However, no details of manoeuvring tracking curves for such vehicles are shown. 25. Both the proposed dwelling and commercial use will generate vehicle movements and a demand for parking and turning within the site both in terms of occupiers or visitors of the dwelling and deliveries in connection with the business.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Based on the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that sufficient parking space and turning space can be provided to the rear. Given the larger vehicle sizes, the mix of uses and, as only one space is indicated on the proposed plans in connection with the rear uses, I am not satisfied that such details could be reserved by way of a condition. 26. No 107 would have 2 parking spaces to the front of the dwelling and although I have no substantive details of the manoeuvring space, from my on-site observations, I am satisfied that this could be accommodated. As such, details could be reserved by way of a condition were I minded to allow the appeal. 27. Drawing the above together, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety along Marton Road. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the LP and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2001/W/21/3282963 paragraph 111 of the Framework. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on road safety. Other Matters 28. Within the context of the pandemic, flexible working is common, with increased home working and, having the commercial activities adjacent to the appellant’s home, would have financial savings. Moreover, there would be additional personal benefits from this convenience having regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate the specific need for the development in this location in connection with the health requirements. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that other alternatives have been investigated and discounted. As such, the benefits in this regard, do not warrant an exceptional approach or outweigh my findings on the main issues. 29. Within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Act it is not within my remit to formally determine whether or not the business operations are lawful. I have determined the appeal based on the proposal submitted and evidence before me.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision There is therefore no firm evidence before me of any ‘fallback’ position. 30. Concerns in relation to other previous complaints are not matters that I can assess as part of this appeal and do not affect the merits of the case before me. Conclusion 31. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Rear Of 107 Marton Road, BRIDLINGTON, YO16 7PX — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Mr R Walker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5