Case 3319327

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
26 September 2023
Authority
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Inspector
Moulton E
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
EW Developments Ltd
LPA reference
DC/2022/01971
ONS LPA code
E08000014
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
13 July 2023

Summary AI

The appeal for a development in Bootle, Sefton, has been dismissed due to concerns over the living conditions of future occupiers. The proposal, which involves converting the ground floor of an existing premises into self-contained apartments, fails to provide satisfactory living conditions due to inadequate outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy, and internal space. The inspector's decision is based on the development plan, national policy, and supplementary planning documents in place at the time of the appeal.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2023 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 September 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/M4320/W/23/3319327 18-20 Hawthorne Road, Bootle, Sefton L20 2DN • 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 Edwards of EW Developments Ltd against the decision of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/2022/01971, dated 5 October 2022, was refused by notice dated 19 January 2023. • The development proposed is conversion of ground floor to existing premises into self- contained apartments. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the interests of clarity and accuracy, I have used the site address from the appeal form and decision notice rather the planning application form. 3. Since the decision on the planning application was issued, the Council has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘Conversion to Flats and Houses in Multiple Occupation, dated May 2023.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Council has confirmed that this has replaced the Supplementary Planning Document, ‘Flats and Houses in Multiple Occupation’ dated June 2018, that it took into consideration when determining the planning application. 4. Appeal decisions must be based upon the development plan, national policy and supplementary planning documents that are in place at that time. Consequently, this appeal is determined in consideration of the May 2023 Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD). Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy and internal space. Reasons 6. The appeal property is in a densely developed mixed area, comprising commercial and residential uses, characterised by terraced properties. It is sited on the corner of Hawthorne Road and Ursula Street at the end of a short terrace. An enclosed external yard area is located at the rear of the appeal site. 7. Policy HC4 of A Local Plan for Sefton (2017) (LP) states that development involving the conversion of buildings to houses in multiple occupation or flats https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/23/3319327 will be permitted where it will not cause significant harm to the character of the area or the living conditions for either the occupiers of the property or for neighbouring properties. Detailed guidance as to how LP Policy HC4 is to be implemented is set out in the SPD. 8. Of the three apartments proposed in the appeal scheme, only apartment 3 would have direct access to the outdoor amenity space through a door in the bedroom. The occupiers of apartments 1 and 2 would have to leave the building, walk along the pavement, and access the outdoor amenity space through a gate off Ursula Street. Such arrangements would be inconvenient and likely to dissuade occupiers from accessing and making use of this space. It would be contrary to the SPD requirement that residents should not have to leave the property and enter the space from a public highway. 9. Consequently, even if the amount of outdoor amenity space would accord with the minimum standards set out in the SPD, the proposal would fail to provide a high standard of amenity for all future occupiers in terms of provision of, and access to, outdoor space.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that substandard outdoor amenity space, in respect of access, should be accepted in this case. 10. The only window to the bedroom of apartment 1 would face onto the side wall of the adjoining property. It would fall considerably short of the minimum distance, set out in the SPD, between a main window in a habitable room on the ground floor and a blank wall. The substantial enclosing and dominating effect on the outlook from that window would be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers. Whilst this is an existing window it was not previously used as a habitable room and, therefore, the restricted outlook from that window did not adversely affect the living conditions of any occupant. As such, it is not directly comparable to the appeal proposal and the fact that it is an existing window does not provide a clear or convincing justification for that arrangement in the scheme before me. 11. It has been suggested that a suitable outlook to the bedroom of apartment 1 could be provided by adding a window on the rear elevation.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Alternatively, it has been suggested that a studio apartment could be created where the bedroom would share the outlook from the window onto Ursula Street. However, it is my duty to consider the appeal based on the plans and documents that were determined by the Council and that are currently before me. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that such amendments would be minor and that it would be reasonable and appropriate to secure by a condition. 12. The intervisibility between, and proximity of, the glazing to the bedrooms of apartments 1 and 3 would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of each apartment due to overlooking and loss of privacy. Furthermore, the bedroom to apartment 1, at 9.5 square metres, is below the 10.5 square metre minimum gross internal floor area for a main bedroom set out in the SPD now in place. This requirement applies whether it is a single or double room. Such a shortfall in accommodation further adversely affects the living conditions of the occupiers of apartment 1. 13. Consequently, I find that the proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy and internal space.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision It would therefore conflict with LP Policy HC4, the SPD and paragraph 130f) of the National https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision It would therefore conflict with LP Policy HC4, the SPD and paragraph 130f) of the National https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 7 Appeal Decision

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/M4320/W/23/3319327 Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure new development provides a high standard of amenity for future occupiers. Other Matters 14. The appellant has indicated that the property has been unsuccessfully marketed for a 3-year period and that there are no highway or environmental health objections to the proposal. Nonetheless, this does not justify allowing development which I have found to be otherwise harmful. 15. In response to the claim about lack of engagement during the application process, the Council indicates that they offer a pre-application service which the appellant did not utilise. Such matters do not, however, relate to the planning merits of the appeal proposal and, as such, fall outside of the remit of this decision. Conclusion 16. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 3 · Chunk 8 Elaine Moulton

18-20 HAWTHORNE ROAD , BOOTLE , MERSEYSIDE , L20 2DN — Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council — Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶9

The proposal would fail to provide a high standard of amenity for all future occupiers in terms of provision of, and access to, outdoor space, as the occupiers of apartments 1 and 2 would have to leave the building to access the outdoor amenity space, contrary to the SPD requirement.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶12

The intervisibility between, and proximity of, the glazing to the bedrooms of apartments 1 and 3 would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of each apartment due to overlooking and loss of privacy.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶13

The proposed development would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor amenity space, outlook, privacy and internal space.

Heritage impact
Neutral

The inspector notes that the appeal property is in a densely developed mixed area, but does not identify any harm to the character of the area.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
LP Policy HC4
Determinative
SPD
Determinative
National Planning Policy Framework
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 26 September 2023 under the Open Government Licence.