Appeal 3277043

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner above is taken from the Council’s decision notice. It is more precise than that used in the application form and omits wording relating to the merits of the case.

At the date of the application, and as I saw at my site visit, the development had already been carried out.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the provision of car parking at the appeal property and highway safety.

The appeal property is a detached three-bedroom house. It is part of a mixed use development still under construction, including for 196 dwellings. As originally permitted and built, it had two off-street car parking spaces — a car port and in front a paved hardstanding in tandem layout, accessed directly off a main estate spine road. This was typical of parking arrangements at similar houses fronting the spine road, all subject to a condition that these spaces shall be retained1. The car port has been enclosed with permanent elevations, including French doors at the front (the development). It can no longer be used as a parking space and has the appearance of a side extension.

One car parked off-street on the hardstanding may meet the appellant’s personal preferences or requirements. However, planning operates in the wider public interest. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that parking is integral to the design of schemes and contributes to making 1 Condition 17 of 18/501048/REM high quality places. Furthermore, that development should function well, not just for the short term but over its lifetime and respond to local design standards, in this case for parking provision. Whether taken at the time planning permission was granted2, or now3, the Council’s parking standards require two off-street car parking spaces for this size of house. Accordingly, there is a significant deficiency (50% reduction) in off-street parking at the appeal property.

There was no permanent parking in the spine road at the time of my visit, albeit a snap-shot in time. The appellant suggests that the absence of on-street parking restrictions, such as resident permits or a controlled parking zone, means there is no parking stress in the area. However, the mixed use development is not yet complete and, moreover, the houses already built have sufficient available off-street parking provision, which I saw was well used. Inadequate off-street parking at the appeal property, albeit by one space, is likely to result in permanent parking in the spine road or overspill parking in the side road residential cul-de-sacs or in visitor parking lay-bys. This would cause unnecessary street clutter, unduly restrict the free flow of traffic and would not minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, at odds with these objectives of the Framework. On-street parking would not, therefore, provide a satisfactory substitute for insufficient off-street parking at the appeal property.

The acceptable appearance of the development does not address the loss of a parking space and domestic storage needs could be conveniently met in the rear garden with a shed or other outbuilding. As in this appeal, each case must be considered on its individual planning merits. Nevertheless, there are a large number of similar houses and car ports in the immediate vicinity. There is, therefore, a realistic prospect that granting planning permission for the development would set an undesirable precedent. It could make it difficult for the Council, or another Inspector, to resist similar development being repeated elsewhere with potential cumulative adverse impacts.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development has an undesirable effect on the provision of car parking at the appeal property and an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It conflicts with the Council’s development plan4 Policies DM7 and DM14. These include that parking standards should take account of the type and size of dwellings and needs of visitors, with appropriate parking provision integrated into layouts. Development should conserve the built environment, achieve safe vehicular access and provide convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists. The development also conflicts with the Framework.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.