A STALYBRIDGE pub will be converted into a house in multiple occupation (HMO) after a planning appeal was successful.
Tameside Council said no to the Stocks Inn becoming an eight-unit property because of concerns over parking and outdoor amenity space.
However, Devon-based Morada Properties has succeeded with an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
And planning inspector Robert Major believes council claims about parking not being supported by ‘detailed analysis’ contributed to him overturning the January decision.
Tameside Council dismissed the application, stating: “There is limited available on street parking in the immediate vicinity due to existing high vehicle parking demand on the surrounding streets from existing residential and commercial uses.
“Any additional overspill of on street parking generated by the scale of the proposed eight-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation would result in double parking on both sides of the street.
“Consequently, the proposal would have a potentially detrimental impact on road safety and on the amenity enjoyed by road users and local residents.
“The development as proposed fails to provide adequate quality useable/dedicated proposed outdoor amenity space commensurate to the needs of the future residents.”
However, Mr Major saw little evidence to corroborate those findings.
In a report, he said: “There appears to be no dispute that this eight-bedroomed HMO would create a demand for four additional car parking spaces.
“The appellant states there is on-street parking capacity on surrounding streets to accommodate the cars. In support of this claim, the appellant has provided a Car Parking Survey (CPS).
“The submitted CPS concludes there is sufficient on-street parking provision in this area to accommodate the additional vehicles arising from this development.
“The council has questioned the results, stating members of the Highway Team visited the site to validate the results and observed there is a high demand for parking.
“I also acknowledge a number of interested parties raised concerns in respect of demand for parking. Nevertheless, the claims of the council are not supported by any detailed analysis of the existing situation.
“Consequently, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate a current shortfall in spaces.
“During my site visit, on a weekday morning, I noted a significant number of unoccupied spaces on the surrounding streets of Stocks Lane, Tatton Street, Elgin Street and Lindsay Street, as well as a small number of spaces along the short highway of Compton Street.
“While I appreciate my site visit is a single snapshot in time and demand will likely fluctuate at different times, my observations on site were not dissimilar to the findings and evidence detailed within the submitted CPS.
“Consequently, on the evidence before me, as well as my own observations on site, I find it is likely there would be an adequate number of on-street parking spaces available in the vicinity to cater for the additional parking demand.
“I appreciate interested parties’ comments that cars parking on footways would restrict pedestrian movements.
“However, I observed various cars parked with their wheels overhanging the footway and thus this is an existing issue, as is the concern raised in respect of issues arising from delivery vehicles parking in this area.
“Nevertheless, given the amount of available on street parking spaces I observed, and as detailed within the submitted CPS, I do not find the additional parking demand arising from the proposed development would unduly impact upon these existing situations.”
On the outdoor amenity space point, the inspector also went against Tameside Council’s view, with other concerns also being dismissed, again because of a lack of ‘substantive evidence.’
He added: “Residents would have access to nearby areas of outdoor public open space, the closest being an area directly to the rear of the terrace properties on the opposite side of Stocks Lane.
“There are also significant larger areas of public open space at the Fern Bank Recreation Ground and Cheetham Park, which I find are both within a reasonable walking distance.
“These nearby areas of public open space would provide future occupiers of the appeal proposal with recreation space and areas for sitting out.
“As such, the lack of outdoor amenity space within the site itself would not create an institutionalised environment for future occupiers, compelling them to remain indoors.
“Whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would provide very limited on-site provision of outdoor amenity space, in this specific case I conclude future occupiers would benefit from good access to nearby areas of public open space.
“A concern has been raised by interested parties the proposed development would put extra strain on local resources.
“However, I have no substantive evidence this proposal would put undue strain on local services.
“Interested parties have raised concerns over the type of accommodation being provided, issues around absent landlords and the transient nature of tenants associated with HMOs, as well as highlighting the potential for anti-social behaviour.
“There is, however, no substantive evidence to suggest any such issues would arise from the appeal proposal.”
Steven Higginbottom, of Morada Property Management lodged the appeal, which has been allowed despite local concerns.
However, he was ground floor windows facing the side access passage, serving proposed unit two, must be obscurely glazed (before anyone moves in.
The inspector said: “This condition is necessary to ensure future occupiers of this unit receive an acceptable level of privacy.”
Construction will also only be allowed between 7.30am and 6pm Monday-Friday and 8am and 1pm on Saturday.
‘A site visit on a weekday morning’ to assess parking? Try coming back in the early evening or at weekend when families are at home, and the takeaway delivery drivers are there in force, and then decide there will be adequate parking.
And as for ‘ limited provision of outdoor… space ‘ – there is no outdoor space around the Stocks at all, unless you count the pavement!
I find it outrageous that decision taken by a local council, which takes into consideration the concerns of local residents, can be overturned so dismissively. Is there any chance of our appealing?
100% agree with your comments.
From Devon? Lives local then? Surveyed the place when people back home after work (apparently not)
Total Sham.
A visit to assess the car parking, requires more than one visit, Friday from 4 onwards is terrible to park. 5 business within stocks lane, takeaway shops, 10 plus cars, tanning shop hairdressers open from early till late. Then an overspill when the restaurant is busy.
Can we appeal the decision? Or would a petition be required, would nothing be started until a further decision ?
It would have to go to some sort of arbitration and TMBC probably will not puttheir hands in the coffers.
Well that’s a big f u from some southerner who doesn’t know the area.
Remember to report any illegal parking by any vans carrying out the works, to tameside council.
Let’s see how good the parking really is.
I wonder what ‘professional’ people will end up in a HMO? Hmmmm…..
I have contacted the council about pavement parking and they told me it’s a job forthe Police.
There is no mention of the objection made by Transport for Greater Manchester. The barbers shop that that opened on the corner of Stocks lane parks his Merc on the double yellow lines all the time.