Appeal 6001541

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use of estate agency office (Use Class E) to 2 one-bedroom flats (Use Class 3) at [site address] , Ulverston, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 2025/0552/FPA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 671/03 – [name] and Site Plan, 680/02 – Proposed elevations, ground and first floor plans.

In the banner heading above, the description of development is that applied for on the application form. It appears that this description was modified by the Council and the appellant was notified. The appellant has used the Council’s amended description on the appeal submission documents. For conciseness, I have also used the amended description in my decision.

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached building with two floors, within Ulverston town centre. It has a tight arrangement with surrounding buildings at the rear, and the internal staircase leads to the rear also. These physical characteristics provide some explanation as to why most of the building’s windows are located within its front elevation.

The building is positioned directly to the back of the footway, which is wide at its eastern extent, but gradually narrows. A single parking bay for disabled badge holders is located across part of the frontage with [address], a single width carriageway with one-way traffic. This leads onto [site address] which contains a large roundabout. At the junction, close to the site is a bus stop and shelter. The area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses.

The Council’s refusal reason raises concerns only with the impact of noise and disturbance to occupiers of the proposed ground floor flat, not those occupying the first floor flat. From my own observations and the available evidence, I have no reason to disagree with the Council in respect to occupiers of the first floor flat. Therefore, I have limited my consideration to the suitability of the proposed accommodation for occupiers of the ground floor flat only.

The windows of the lounge and bedroom within the proposed ground floor flat would be positioned directly onto the footway of [address], close to the junction with [site address] . The depth of these rooms would be limited. As the appeal site is within the town centre and lies between the busy commercial area of [address] and the main distributor route of County Road, [address] and [site address] will experience regular pedestrian and traffic movements, which would no doubt generate some noise and disturbance.

However, it would appear that a number of the roads in the locality, such as [address] and [address], as well as [address], contain both commercial and residential properties. Typically, the residential properties in the area are positioned either to the back of the pavement or directly abutting the carriageway. There is no evidence before me which suggests that occupiers of these residential properties have been subject to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance, particularly at night, when occupiers would reasonably expect a quieter environment.

The appeal scheme would be closer to the junction with [site address] than some of these other residential properties, and it may not be the case that these existing residential properties have bedroom windows positioned at ground floor level.

Nevertheless, the upper floor windows of the appeal proposal would be positioned only a short distance from the ground floor windows, and they would also be close to the road. I am not convinced from the available evidence and my own observations, that there would be any significant difference in the level of noise and disturbance experienced at ground floor level, compared to first floor level, to which the Council has raised no concerns.

Consequently, while pedestrian and traffic movements within the area will be regular, and this will generate some noise and disturbance for occupiers, I do not find that this would be significantly more harmful for occupiers of the ground floor, than those at first floor. As such, I have no reason to consider that occupiers of the ground floor flat would not be provided with an acceptable standard of accommodation.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would provide a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. I find no conflict with Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Development Management Policies document1 (DPD), which require that all new development provides healthy environments that deliver acceptable levels of amenity, by appropriately considering a site’s locational context, including adequate separation between public and private spaces. Nor have I identified any conflict with policy CS1.1 of the Core Strategy2 ,(CS), which seeks to achieve sustainable development through high quality design.

The appeal site lies within the Ulverston Conservation Area (CA). The Ulverston Conservation Area Character Appraisal, May 2006, identifies the appeal building as having a beneficial impact on the special architectural interest of the conservation area and subtly compliments the other public buildings in [site address] . As such, it is also considered to be a non-designated heritage asset by the Council, and I have no reason to disagree.

The proposal would involve some minor external alterations to the rear of the building only, which is not visible in public views. Given this lack of visibility, the details provided on the proposed drawings are sufficient and it is not necessary for me to impose a condition requiring the submission of further details of these new openings. The proposal would preserve the significance derived from the building itself and the positive contribution this makes to the character and appearance of the CA.

I have considered the imposition of any conditions with regards to the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions specifying the time limit for implementation of the permission and the approved plans are necessary in the interests of certainty.

The proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.