Appeal 3279294

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for double storey side extension, double and single storey rear extension, removal of conservatory and garage, addition of windows to front elevation, relocation of entrance, replacement of current windows with sash windows, and external and internal refurbishment works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00905/FUL, dated 3 May 2021, subject to the following conditions:

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: 254/PL/001; 254/PL/002; 254/PL/003A; 254/PL/004A; 254/PL/005A; 254/PL/006; 254/PL/007.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be those specified on the planning application form and the approved plans.

The description of the development in the heading above is taken from the planning application form. However, I have used the description stated on the appeal form and decision notice for the formal decision above, with some minor amendments to it, in the interests of clarity, precision and concision.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was revised on 20 July

It replaces the version from 2019 that the Council considered when it determined the application. There are few differences between the two versions of the Framework regarding the specific issues in dispute for this appeal, such that it has not been necessary to seek the views of the parties on this matter.

Additionally, since the application was determined, the Writtle Neighbourhood Plan (NP) has been subject to a referendum. The Council has confirmed that the results were in favour of the NP and thus it has come into force as part of the statutory development plan for the area. The Council has identified its relevance to the appeal. I have had regard to the NP in making this decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The site includes a house at the end of a row of properties fronting [address]. The house has a front porch and a detached garage to its side. An area of hardstanding accessed from the road is used as a parking space. Some of the properties within the row and further along [address], including some in a group near [address], have no or one off-street parking space. [name] visited, a moderately sized modern car was parked comfortably on the hardstanding space. In addition, one vehicle was parked on [address] near the site and several more were parked near [address]. Vehicles were also parked near the site on [address].

Amongst other things, the proposal includes the removal of the porch and the garage. The drawings indicate that two off-street parking spaces would be provided, with one in a similar position to the existing parking space, and the other to the front of the house around where the porch is situated.

The Essex Parking Standards (EPS)1 provides guidance on parking. It identifies preferred parking space sizes of 5.5 metres by 2.9 metres, but neither of the proposed spaces would be that size. Chelmsford Local Plan (LP) Policy DM27 sets out that regard should be had to the EPS and that proposals should be supported by evidence detailing local circumstances that might justify deviation from the EPS. In addition, Policy WNP D1 of the NP sets out that development will be supported which includes off-street parking wherever possible. However, I have not been referred to any development plan policies which explicitly stipulate that development must comply with specific standards in the EPS.

The proposed side extension would be set back further from [address] than the existing garage and thus there would be more space for a vehicle to park off-street than is currently the case. The space in front of the house would be roughly parallel to the highway. Access to it would likely involve a reversing manoeuvre that would be unfeasible for moderately sized cars. Consequently, that space is unlikely to be used regularly. However, the existing garage is likely to be capable of accommodating only small vehicles because of its narrow opening. Therefore, I consider that the existing and proposed parking arrangements each feature one practicably accessible and usable off-street parking space for moderately sized cars.

Although an increase in bedrooms is not shown on the drawings, the Design and [name] suggests that an additional bedroom would be created. 1 [name]: Design and [name], September 2009 The proposal may therefore result in an increased number of inhabitants and thus demand for on-street parking. However, this does not necessarily mean that highway safety would be harmed.

[address] is relatively straight, has footpaths on both sides and a 30 miles per hour speed limit. As such, there is good intervisibility between highway users along the road and vehicles must travel at relatively low speeds. There is no substantive evidence that the properties with limited off-street parking, or the parking that occurs on-street nearby, are currently causing highway safety issues. Furthermore, firm evidence has not been provided which indicates that on-street parking in the vicinity is nearing or at capacity. Any increase in on-street parking demand arising from extensions to a single dwelling is likely to be limited and additional vehicles would likely park in a similar way to vehicles being parked on-street currently. Based on the evidence and my observations on site, the proposal would not harm highway safety.

I find that local circumstances justify the proposed parking arrangement and the development would not result in harm to highway safety. The proposal complies with LP Policy DM27 and NP Policy WNP D1. In addition, it accords with paragraphs 110 to 112 of the Framework, which set out that development should only be prevented if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and that safe and suitable access for all users should be achieved.

NP Policy WNP D1 says that off-street parking should be combined with landscaping to minimise the visual impact of vehicles on the street scene. As the property already features some low-level landscaping and vehicles would be parked off-street primarily in similar positions to the current arrangement, I find no conflict with the policy. Interested parties raised concerns about the size and design of the proposal and its effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, the Council considered and did not object to the proposal regarding those matters. I have no compelling reasons to reach a different conclusion to the Council in respect of those matters.

In addition to the standard time condition, one is needed to require that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. The Council has recommended a condition to require that the materials to be used for the development match those used for the existing dwelling. However, the building is currently rendered, and this is proposed to be removed. The materials to be used are specified in detail on the application form and drawings, and thus a condition to require that the materials used are those specified is needed instead. This would ensure that the resulting property has a cohesive appearance and is compatible with the character of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.