Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 June 2022 by Samuel Watson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th July 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/21/3283298 Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland L21 7PQ • 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 Maclaren against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2019/00464, dated 20 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 22 March 2021. • The development proposed is the erection of a 2 unit mews development following demolition of existing three storey building. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The scheme before me was amended during the planning application to reduce it from three dwellings to two. The description was also changed to reflect this by agreement of the main parties. I have used this description in the header above and have consider the scheme as amended. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, • The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Reasons Character and Appearance 4.

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site is accessed off Sefton Road, which is characterised primarily by traditional residential dwellings with pitched roofs. The site itself is an area of land surrounded by residential properties on three sides and contains a rectangular two-storey building with a pitched roof. Immediately adjacent to the site is a Masonic Hall which has a more commercial appearance and does not reflect the wider character of the area. Nevertheless, I do not find the effect of the Masonic Hall to be so significant as to change the character of the area as a whole. Notwithstanding its location behind buildings, the appeal site is still readily visible from Sefton Road across the car park serving the Masonic Hall. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/21/3283298 5. The proposed replacement building would have a similar footprint to the existing and would retain a significant area of open space around the building, which would maintain the spaciousness of the site and to this extent the plot would not appear cramped as a result. However, the proposed building would provide three floors served by a flat roof. Therefore, whilst also of similar height to the existing building, the additional floor, by way of replacing the pitched roof, would result in the building appearing taller and bulkier than the existing. Moreover, the form and appearance of the building, including the flat roof, appears akin to buildings more typically associated with former warehouse or dockyard areas rather than a traditional residential area. Whilst I note the level of detailing proposed, it does not result in building that is sympathetic to the traditional dwellings nearby. 6. Therefore, overall, the character of the building is of a stylised utilitarian design and consequently would be out of keeping with the traditional residential character of the surrounding area. As a result of this harm, the proposal would not be an efficient use of the site. 7.

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The existing use on site is for the storage, maintenance and repair of commercial passenger vehicles, such as minibuses and coaches. I understand that this use has not been carried out for some time, but it has not been demonstrated that the use is no longer extant. Given the scale of the existing use in relation to the proposal, I find that the residential use would not result in an over intensification on-site and would be more appropriate to the residential character of the area than the use it replaces. 8. Nevertheless, the proposed development would, by way of its form, appearance and scale, be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy EQ2 of A Local Plan for Sefton (the LPS, April 2017) which requires that developments respond positively to the character, distinctiveness, and form of its surroundings. The proposal would also conflict with the design guidance contained within the New Housing Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD, June 2018). Living Conditions 9. There is a dwelling either side of the driveway serving the appeal site, and both have windows which face out on to it.

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision I find it highly likely, should the existing use restart, that both dwellings would experience disturbance from the noise and vibrations of vehicular movements along this driveway, this would be more acute due to above mentioned windows. While I understand the existing use is not being carried out at present and neighbouring occupiers may be used to the current situation, I find no reason to believe the use could not easily be restarted. 10. The pair of proposed dwellings would also result in a number of vehicular movements each day, and these would again affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. However, domestic vehicles are typically much smaller and lighter than those associated with the existing use. As such any associated noise and vibrations would also be more limited in comparison. Moreover, I find it unlikely that the comings and goings associated with the dwellings would be so much greater that there would be an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers to the detriment of their living conditions. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/21/3283298 11. Therefore, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers as a result of an unacceptable increase in noise stemming from any potential vehicular movements. The proposal would therefore comply with LPS Policy EQ2 which requires, amongst other matters, that proposals protect the amenity of those adjacent to the site. In this way it would also comply with the aims of the SPD guidance relating to properties next to access roads. Other Matters 12. Although the Council may have made supportive comments, including encouraging a bold design, during pre-application discussions, such discussions cannot bind a planning authority’s determination of any planning application they may subsequently consider. Furthermore, I must consider the scheme against an impartial assessment of the planning merits. Planning Balance 13. The government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing and the proposal would provide two new dwellings with a good level of access to public transport links.

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The scheme would also lead to a small and time-limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as potentially some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. Given the small scale of the proposal, these benefits attract modest weight. 14. Whilst the proposal may not result in any harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to highway safety, these matters are a lack of harm rather than a benefit. I therefore attach them only neutral weight. 15. Conversely, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would thus conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. This matter attracts significant weight and outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development. Conclusion 16. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, and for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Rear of 54 Sefton Road, Litherland, Litherland, Merseyside, L21 7PQ — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Samuel Watson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3