A planning inspector has blocked contentious proposals to transform a former religious retreat house in suburban Preston to house dozens of bedsits.
The overhaul of the old Xaverian Mission Spirituality Centre, situated on Sharoe Green Lane in Fulwood, was rejected from Preston City Council's planning committee in December.
The council members deduced that converting the building into a 31-room house in multiple occupation (HMO) would be detrimental to the local character and result in an "over-concentration" of use for the property, which had been home solely to a small group of priests since 1998.
READ MORE: {}
Sapphire Properties Investment Limited – the Preston company behind the scheme – appealed to the Planning Inspectorate to reverse the decision, but the ruling was upheld.
Company owner Mick Patel told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that there is a "90 per cent chance" he will escalate the issue to the High Court to contest the inspector's decision.
However, Sharoe Green ward councillor Maxwell Green applauded the decision, saying: "You've got to take into consideration [the] neighbours – you can't just do as you will.
"Plus, there are traffic issues around there at the best of times – and it's not five or 10 minutes in the morning and afternoon, it can go on for hours."
When the council planning committee first reviewed the application last November, members sought further details on property management, voicing concerns about its impact on local residents despite Sapphire's assertion that it would primarily accommodate NHS staff from the nearby Royal Preston.
Most Read
The company did submit a management plan for the December meeting, but it failed to satisfy the committee's requirements.
While not cited as an official reason for the committee's rejection, appeal inspector Sarah Manchester took the management issue into consideration in her verdict.
She noted that although the plan suggested tenant behaviour would be monitored, "it does not explain what behaviours would or would not be acceptable, who would be responsible for monitoring, or when or what action would or could be taken if conduct was deemed unacceptable".
Manchester also mentioned that while a more robust management plan could be imposed as a condition of approval, "it has not been demonstrated how – or even if – the appellant could control the noise and disturbance associated with around 30 residents, their visitors and guests".
Additionally, she observed that "the comings and goings" from the building and the use of the garden would significantly surpass typical activity in the residential area.
However, Mick Patel says that the specific issue of premises management has "nothing to do with" the planning process and thus should not have been taken into account.
"We're talking to the barristers now and we're probably going to take it to the High Court, because we think there's [been] some mistakes...by the Planning Inspectorate," he stated.
Don’t miss
"What really [annoys me] is that it was aimed at nurses and doctors – and it would have been ideal for them. They wouldn't have even used cars, they'd have walked to work."
The site currently leases 29 car parking spaces for use by NHS staff.
Before deciding on any court action, Mr. Patel plans to engage with the city council to see if a more robust management plan to "mitigate" any issues could potentially result in a different outcome if a new application were submitted.
Since the HMO application was initially rejected late last year, Sapphire Properties Investment has since removed trees and shrubbery from the site and installed a "hardstanding" area to create a new one-way system for the vehicles that currently park there.
The company has retrospectively sought permission from Preston City Council for the latter changes.
The firm maintains that this would enable the use of an existing, second access point to the plot, thereby creating separate entry and exit points.
Mick Patel notes that Lancashire County Council highways officials support the move, citing its potential to "minimise congestion and conflicts between incoming and outgoing vehicles and enhance the overall safety of the site".
However, the removal of greenery without needing approval from city council planning officers has been met with criticism from Cllr Maxwell Green. He said: "You could argue [previously] that there was a bit of privacy between the [site and its] neighbour – but now there's literally [none]."