Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 26, 27 & 28 November 2008Site visit made on 28 November 2008
by Karen L Ridge
LLB (Hons) MTPL
The Planning Inspectorate4/11 Eagle WingTemple Quay House2 The SquareTemple QuayBristol BS1 6PN
0117 372 6372email:enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Statefor Communities and Local Government
Decision date:20 January 2009
Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/A/08/2079502Bellefield Training Ground, land off Sandforth Road, Liverpool and nos. 88,90, 92 and 94 Sandforth Road, Liverpool L12 1LW
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a refusal to grant planning permission.
•
The appeal is made by The Everton Football Club Company Limited against the decisionof Liverpool City Council.
•
The application Ref. 07F/2301, dated 6 August 2007, was refused by notice dated11 June 2008.
•
The development proposed is a residential development to form 74 dwellings, formationof access onto Sandforth Road and associated works (including the demolition of numbers 88, 90, 92 and 94 Sandforth Road and structures associated with the formertraining facility).
Procedural matters
1.
At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by The Everton Football ClubCompany Limited (the football club) against Liverpool City Council. Thisapplication is the subject of a separate Decision.2.
The planning application which led to this appeal was submitted by the footballclub and David Wilson Homes North West. Following the refusal of planningpermission this appeal was brought by the football club and therefore in thisDecision Letter all references to the appellants are to the football club alone.3.
During the course of the Inquiry the main parties confirmed that the applicationplans listed in Annex A at the end of this decision letter comprise the submittedplans on which the appeal should be determined. A Statement of CommonGround was also agreed between the main parties and submitted in relation tovarious matters.4.
An executed Unilateral Undertaking, made under section 106 of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990 (the s106 agreement), has been submitted by theappellants to the Inquiry. The s106 agreement contains an obligation relatingto the payment of £100,000 for the provision or improvement of off-site openspace, together with a promise to use the monetary proceeds of the sale of theappeal site towards the provision of a new stadium or, if no stadium isforthcoming, then a promise to apply the monies to the appellants existingstadium. I have taken its contents into account in determining this appeal.
Decision
5.
I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/A/08/20795022
Main issues
6.
Having regard to the evidence I have heard and read, I consider that there aretwo main issues in this case, namely;(i)
the effect of the proposal on the residential amenity of surrounding residents having regard to increased trafficmovements; and(ii)
the acceptability of the proposed residential development havingregard to: (a) loss of green space, (b) housing land supplymatters and (c) its effect on the Housing Market RenewalInitiative.
Reasons
The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of nearby residents havingregard to increased traffic
7.
The appeal site is a rectangular shaped piece of land of some 3.6 hectares,located in a predominantly residential area approximately 6 km from LiverpoolCity Centre. The site is bounded on three sides by the rear gardens of houseson Sandforth Road, Bellefield Avenue and Eaton Road with a remainingboundary onto North Drive. Access to the site is gained via a track betweentwo pairs of semi-detached houses on Sandforth Road. The appeal proposalwould have an enlarged access resulting from the demolition of two pairs of semi-detached houses on the Sandforth Road frontage.8.
In relation to this issue, the Council confirms that its objection is based onwhat it sees as the resultant harm to residential amenity which would arisefrom increased traffic generated by the proposal. It confirms that as far as it isconcerned there are no unresolved technical transport or highway mattersassociated with the proposals. Policy H5 of the Liverpool Unitary DevelopmentPlan (UDP)
1
sets out criteria to be applied to proposals for new residentialdevelopment, including requirements to maintain levels of amenity for existingand future residents as well as ensuring a safe, convenient and nuisance-freeenvironment for all users. I have noted the concerns of local residents inrelation to highway safety matters and I shall deal with these matters later inthis Decision Letter.9.
The appellants’ highways engineer, Mr Dmoch, used the Institute of Environmental Assessment Guidelines to assess the effect of the additionaltraffic. Whilst the guidelines are primarily directed at major newdevelopments, I note that they provide that there would have to be a doublingof traffic to be a perceptible noise impact. This gives some indication as to thepoint at which increasing traffic levels begin to affect noise levels.10.
If figures for the previous trip generation of the training facility are ignored,there would be an increase in the order of some 39% of the total two-waytraffic flow along Sandforth Road. Given that the appellants’ figures utilisedthe upper end of estimates I am satisfied that the predicted vehicle movementsrepresent a robust depiction of likely trip generation. The additional trafficwould be of a similar nature to that which already uses the road. Mr Dmoch
1
Whilst the UDP was adopted in 2002, all of the UDP policies referred to in this decision letter were the subject of a saving direction made under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/A/08/20795023
further confirms that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additionaltraffic both on Sandforth Road and within the local highway network.11.
Councillor Irving gave evidence in support of the Council’s decision. He saidthat increased traffic movement along Sandforth Road would be detrimental tothe residential amenity of residents along the road but he did not specify theway in which such amenity would be harmed or produce any evidence inrelation to such harm. I do not regard it as sufficient to contend thatresidential amenity will be harmed but then fail to particularise the resultantharm alleged. Without such details it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the Council’s objection.12.
In any event, there is nothing to contradict the evidence of Mr Dmoch that theadditional traffic generated by the proposal would not result in a materialimpact on the living conditions of existing residents given the predicted levelsand composition of the additional vehicles as well as the nature of thesurrounding roads in terms of existing capacity and speed levels. I thereforeconclude that there is nothing to suggest that the proposal would have adetrimental effect on the living conditions of surrounding residents by virtue of the increased traffic movements. In this respect the proposal would be inconformity with UDP policy H5.
The principle of residential development
13.
The site was previously a training ground for the football club but it is no longerin use following the completion of a new facility elsewhere. The main partiesare agreed that some 83% of the appeal site comprises outside sports pitcheswith the remaining 17% made up of the access road, two pairs of semi-detached houses and other buildings and hardstanding associated with thetraining facility use. Therefore whilst some of the site consists of previouslydeveloped land, a much larger part comprises undeveloped land.14.
The site lies some 0.5km away from West Derby village, a local centrecontaining a range of shops, community facilities and commercial uses. Thesurrounding area is well-served by playing fields and a number of primary andsecondary schools are located within a reasonable distance of the site. Theappeal site is also within walking distance of bus stops on the routes of a rangeof regular bus services. Taking all of these factors into account, I conclude thatthe site is in a sustainable location.
Development plan policies
15.
The development plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy for the NorthWest (RSS) and saved policies from the UDP. The RSS was published inSeptember 2008 and sets out a strategic vision for development andinvestment in the North West region over the next 15 to 20 years. Strategicpolicies DP1, DP2 and DP4 of the RSS emphasise the need to promotesustainable communities and to make the best use of existing resources whilstpolicy DP4 sets out a sequential approach to land use. I acknowledge that thesite would not sit wholly within the first or second categories of policy DP4given that it contains elements of both developed and undeveloped land.However, since a large part of it comprises land which has not previously beendeveloped I consider that the site is more appropriately deemed to be in thesecond category of DP4.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Belle Field Decision
Planning Inspectorate's comments on Bellefield application
439
Reads
0
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
