Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 2 June 2016

by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 19 July 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

14 Lynton Vale Avenue, Gatley, Cheadle SK8 4DF

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against
a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for
outline planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mrs Jillian Carswell against Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council.
The application Ref DC057891 was dated 10 October 2014.
The development proposed is the erection of a single detached dwelling to the rear of
14 Lynton Vale Avenue, Gatley.

Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the
erection of a single detached dwelling to the rear of 14 Lynton Vale Avenue,
Gatley at 14 Lynton Vale Avenue, Gatley, Cheadle SK8 4DF in accordance with
the terms of the application Ref DC057891, dated 10 October 2014, subject to
the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.
Procedural matters
2. The address of the site is variously described in the evidence as Lyntonvale
Avenue, Lynton Vale Avenue and Lynton Vale Drive. For consistency, the name
given in the above heading and in my decision is Lynton Vale Avenue, which
reflects the description on the road sign next to the entrance to this highway.
3. The application was submitted in outline form with only access and scale to be
determined at this stage. Plans have been provided that show an example of
how the site could be laid out and landscaped. For the avoidance of doubt, I
have taken all of the drawings that were submitted into account insofar as they
are relevant to my consideration of the scale of development and the access
arrangements to serve it. All of the drawings are sufficiently accurate and clear
to allow a reasonable assessment of the proposal.
4. Following the appeal submission, the Council confirmed that it would have
refused outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of the provision of an access drive
lying immediately adjacent to 20 Lynton Vale Avenue, would result in an
unacceptable relationship which is made worse by the nature and alignment of
the access proposal which would be detrimental to the residential amenity of
the occupiers of that dwelling. As such the scheme fails to retain good levels of

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

amenity for the occupants of existing housing and as such the development is
contrary to Policies H-2 Design of Residential Development and SIE-1 Quality
Places of the adopted Stockport Core Strategy DPD. In addition, the proposal
would be contrary to paragraph 17 Core Principles of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF) in that it fails to secure good standards of amenity for
existing occupants of buildings.
2. The applicant has failed to make provision for recreation and amenity open
space for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements of
Saved Policy L1.2 Childrens Play of the Stockport UDP Review and policy
SIE-2 Provision of Recreation & Amenity Space in New Developments of the
Stockport Core Strategy DPD and the adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance Recreational Open Space Provision and Commuted Sum Payments.
5. The Council has confirmed that reference to Policy H-2 of the Councils Core
Strategy DPD (CS) in the first ground of objection is incorrect and should read
Policy H-1 of the same document. I have assessed the proposal on that basis.
6. To address the second ground of objection, the appellant submitted a planning
obligation in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking that provides a commitment
to make a financial contribution towards open space. However, recent
amendments to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) now state that
contributions for tariff style-planning obligations should not be sought for
developments of 10-units or less and which have a maximum combined gross
floor space of no more than 1,000sqm. The proposal would qualify as an
exception on that basis. The Council has since confirmed that there is now no
requirement to make a contribution towards open space or to demonstrate
compliance with the policies cited in the second ground of objection. Given the
Councils stated position and the changes made to the PPG, I see no reason to
reach a different conclusion on this matter and so it is unnecessary for me to
consider this issue any further.
7. At the site visit, I viewed the site from 20 Lynton Vale Avenue with the consent
of the occupier of this adjacent property and did so unaccompanied.
Main issue
8. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living
conditions of the occupiers of 20 Lynton Vale Avenue with particular regard to
potential noise and general disturbance.
Reasons
9. The proposal is to erect a detached dwelling within the garden of the appeal
property, which is 2-storey house that is located towards the end of a
residential cul-de-sac. The existing plot would be subdivided between the
proposed and existing dwellings. The new addition would be 2-storey with an
independent access extending from Lynton Vale Avenue.
10. Although layout is a matter for later consideration, the position of the access
would mean that a new driveway would be likely to extend from the public
highway around the side of No 14 into the main body of the site. In doing so,
the proposal would bring vehicles into an area that is currently free of such
activity close to the adjacent property, which is 20 Lynton Vale Avenue. Such

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

movements could take place at any time of the day or night with a
consequence that any associated noise mainly from passing vehicles might
interrupt the peaceful enjoyment of the house and garden at No 20.
11. Nevertheless, in my experience, accesses and driveways that are close to and
run alongside adjacent properties are a common feature in the relationship
between houses in built up areas. Furthermore, the overall number of vehicle
movements likely to be associated with a single dwelling would be modest.
While there is an entrance and windows in the elevation of No 20 that faces the
site, the Council states that none of these serve habitable rooms. Given the
shape of the site, it is likely that the access road would be set back from or
curve away from the main house and rear garden of No 20. There would also
be sufficient space along the common boundary between No 20 and the site to
introduce measures such as appropriate boundary treatment and landscaping,
secured by conditions, to minimise the effects of noise from passing vehicles.
12. Taken together, I consider that the potential noise and disturbance arising from
the proposal would not be so great as to significantly harm the living conditions
of the occupiers of No 20. Therefore, I find no material conflict with
Development Management Policies H-1 and SIE-2 of the CS insofar as they aim
to safeguard residential amenity. For the same reasons, the proposal would
also adhere with a core principle of the Framework, which is to always seek to
secure a good standard of amenity for all occupants of land and buildings.
Other matters
13. The Officers report records that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year
supply of deliverable housing sites, as required by the Framework. Paragraph
47 of the Framework also states that local planning authorities should boost
significantly the supply of housing. In those circumstances, the need for more
housing carries considerable weight in support of the appeal.
14. The scale of the proposed house would be in keeping with dwellings along
Lynton Vale Avenue and in the local area. The indicative layout shows that the
new addition would stand within a good-sized plot with ample space around the
building. The new development would not therefore appear overly dense.
15. The illustrative layout also demonstrates that reasonably generous distances
would separate the new dwelling with nearby houses to avoid any significant
reduction in light or privacy. The proximity of what would be a substantial
amount of built form introduced into this quiet garden area would change the
outlook from and alter the general ambience associated with some properties,
but the overall relationship would not be unusual in residential areas. Given
the separation distances with adjacent houses, the screening provided by
existing vegetation, which could be supplemented by new planting, and, in
some cases, the angle of view, the proposal would not overly dominate the
outlook for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and their gardens. In
reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the difference in ground
levels between the site and nearby properties.
16. Interested parties raise concern that several trees would be removed and that
some of these are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The appellants
Arboricultural Report (AR) notes that 7 trees on the site would be removed to
facilitate the development and improve the landscape. These trees are graded

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

C which is of low quality and low value. The AR also shows that the root
protection areas of a further 11 trees could be affected during the construction
phase although their protection could be covered by a condition.
17. The Tree Planting Plan shows that there is sufficient space for significant
additional soft landscaping including extra trees and hedgerows so there is
scope for meaningful planting to take place. Over time, this soft landscaping,
which could be secured by conditions, would add to the character and amenity
of the area. The Councils Tree Officer appears to reach a similar opinion and
notes that with replacement planting and further information with regard to
tree protection the site could be improved. On that basis, the Council raises no
objection. On the evidence before me, I concur with that opinion.
18. More traffic would use Lynton Vale Avenue. However, given the sites position
at the end of a cul-de-sac and its use mainly by residents that would be
familiar with the need for care in travelling along its length the level of risk to
highway safety would be acceptable, as would be the access arrangements. I
note that the Councils Highways Engineer raises no objection to the proposal.
19. Residential gardens in built up areas such as the site are excluded from the
definition of previously developed land (PDL). However, the release of gardens
for housing is not, as a matter of principle, objectionable. The Council states
that the site falls within a main spatial priority area for new housing and
gardens that meet other relevant policy requirements are acceptable for such
development. In those circumstances, the priority given to the development of
PDL by policies would not be undermined. Residential development in the
manner proposed would accord with the main considerations set out in the
Framework. Therefore, the proposal is in accordance with national and local
planning policies that govern housing development in locations such as this.
20. There is no detailed evidence to indicate that wildlife habitats would be unduly
harmed or that the development would cause or add to drainage problems. I
note that United Utilities raises no objection to the proposal. Therefore, there
is no compelling reason to refuse outline planning permission on these
grounds. Inevitably, there would be some impact on the local area and nearby
occupiers from activities and deliveries during the construction phase.
However, this potential disruption would be over a limited time period and is
insufficient to justify withholding planning permission.
21. The rearmost part of the back garden of No 14 falls within the Gatley Village
Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, I have paid special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA1.
The illustrative layout shows that the new building could be set back into the
main body of the site, outside the CA with the trees just beyond and close to
the rear boundary largely retained but for 2 specimens. Consequently, the
spacious feel and verdant quality that characterises this part of the CA would
be retained. Accordingly, the character and appearance of the CA and its
setting would be preserved. The Councils Conservation Officer (CO) similarly
raises no objection. In reaching this opinion both the CO and I have taken into
account the effect of removing a historic boundary wall that was originally part
of Gatley Hall to provide access to the site.
1

As required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

22. Gatley Hall is a listed building and is located to the south of the site. A
generous distance would separate this designated heritage asset from the
proposed development. The vegetation along and near to the southern edge of
the site, which would be retained, would largely screen the proposal from the
listed building. Bearing in mind that appearance, layout and landscaping are
all for later consideration, and mindful of my statutory duty2 in respect of the
setting of listed buildings, I consider that the setting of Gatley Hall would be
unaffected by the proposal and thus would be preserved.
23. I acknowledge the strong concerns expressed by many interested parties.
However, the level of local opposition is not, in itself, a reasonable ground for
resisting development. To carry significant weight, opposition should be
founded on valid planning reasons. Having carefully considered each of the
representations made at both the application and appeal stages and taken into
account all of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the objections
raised, taken individually or together, outweigh my findings on the main issue
and in relation to the other matters.
Conditions
24. I have considered the Councils suggested conditions in the light of the
Framework and the PPG and amended them where necessary.
25. The application was submitted in outline form with matters of landscaping,
layout and scale reserved for future determination. Therefore, it is necessary
to attach the standard conditions setting out the timetable for the submission
and approval of these reserved matters. These conditions are additional to
those suggested by the Council. A condition specifying the relevant drawings
and to require that the development is carried out in accordance with them is
necessary as this provides certainty. As landscaping is not for approval at this
stage, it is unnecessary to also list in this condition the Tree Planting Plan and
Arboricultural Report or to require general landscaping details.
26. It is, however, necessary to ensure that no vegetation is removed before a
landscaping scheme is in place and to protect trees and hedgerows on the site
to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Conditions to this
effect are therefore imposed. For the same reason, conditions are attached
requiring samples of external materials and details of boundary treatment. To
protect highway safety, conditions relating to the satisfactory provision of
access with appropriate visibility arrangements and the provision for vehicle
parking, access and cycle storage are also necessary. Details of surface and
foul water disposal are also required to ensure that the site is properly drained.
27. An enlargement of the new dwelling or outbuildings introduced into the gardens
could affect the character, appearance and setting of the CA. Additional
openings in the elevation of the new building facing No 20 may also influence
the living conditions of others. These circumstances are exceptional and justify
the removal of some permitted development rights to safeguard a designated
heritage asset and residential amenity. Conditions to this effect are therefore
imposed. To safeguard the living conditions of future occupiers, it is necessary

I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their setting as required by
section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

to require a scheme of sound insulation to be approved due to the noise from

aircraft using Manchester International Airport.
28. The Council has also suggested conditions to require an investigation of
potential contamination and remediation, if appropriate. However, there is no
evidence before me to indicate that the site might be contaminated. Therefore,
I am not convinced that such an investigation is necessary or reasonable. The
Council also suggested that a condition is required to ensure that the proposal
achieves a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. However, the Officers report
states that the proposal would not trigger the Councils carbon reduction
targets and there is no evidence to the contrary before me. Consequently, I
am not persuaded that such a requirement is necessary to make the
development acceptable. Therefore, these conditions have not been imposed.
Conclusion
29. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Gary Deane
INSPECTOR
Schedule of conditions
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping and layout (hereinafter called "the
reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before any development takes place and the
development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local
planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 2 years from
the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Refs 609_PL01, PL01_02, PL01_03 and
PL01_04.
5) No trees within the site shall be uprooted, felled, removed, lopped, topped,
destroyed or in any way damaged until a landscaping scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All
planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of
landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons
following the occupation of the dwelling or the completion of the
development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a
period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed
or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next
planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local
planning authority gives written approval to any variation.
6) No ground clearance, demolition or construction work shall commence until
protective fencing to BS 5837: 2012 around each tree/tree group or hedge
to be preserved on the site or on immediately adjoining land, and no work
shall be carried out on the site until the written approval of the local
planning authority has been issued confirming that the protective fencing is
erected in accordance with this condition. Within the areas so fenced, the

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered. Roots with a
diameter of more than 25 millimetres shall be left unsevered. There shall
be no construction work, development or development related activity,
including the deposit of spoil or the storage of materials within the
protected areas. The protective fencing shall be permanently retained
during the contruction of the development hereby permitted.
7) No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved samples.
8) Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place
until details of all screen and boundary enclosures have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The dwelling
hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the screen and boundary
enclosures have been erected in accordance with the approved details. No
development shall take place until a detailed drawing of the sites access
arrangements, which shall include the provision of 1-metre by 1-metre
pedestrian visibility splay at each side of the vehicular access has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
dwelling shall not be occupied until the access has been constructed in
accordance with the approved drawing and is available for use. No
structure, object, plant or tree exceeding 600 millimetres in height shall
subsequently be erected or allowed to grow within the visibility splays.
Thereafter, the access shall be retained and available for use at all times.
9) The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access road
and areas for off-street parking have been laid out, drained and surfaced in
accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the access road and
areas for vehicle parking shall be retained and available for use for these
purposes at all times.
10) Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, details of a cycle
parking facility for the approved dwelling shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The dwelling shall not
be occupied until the cycle parking facility has been provided in accordance
with the approved details. Thereafter, the cycle parking facility shall be
retained and available for use at all times.
11) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface water from the site that includes sustainable
drainage measures. The approved scheme shall be completed before the
dwelling hereby permitted is occupied. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
12) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking or
re-enacting that order), no development (as defined by Section 55 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990) as may otherwise be permitted by
Classes A to E (inclusive) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be
carried out.

Appeal Decision APP/C4235/W/16/3142428

13) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer
windows or other openings other than those expressly authorised by this
permission shall be constructed on the elevation of the dwelling hereby
permitted that faces towards 20 Lynton Vale Avenue.
14) No development shall take place until a scheme, prepared by a suitably
qualified person, to protect the occupiers of the dwelling hereby permitted
from noise caused by aircraft movements to and from Manchester
International Airport has been submitted and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved scheme. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be
occupied until a suitably qualified person has provided written confirmation
to the local planning authority that the measures contained in the approved
scheme have been implemented.