Appeal 3297480

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on on-street parking provision and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is the end of terrace, two-storey dwelling, linked to the adjoining short terrace of houses with single storey covered car ports and covered access way to a car park behind.

The Appeal property is part of a large and relatively new housing estate. The site sits adjacent to the Meath Green Conservation Area and a locally listed farm building.

The appellants propose altering the car port adjacent to their house to form an additional bedroom and small outside store. The host dwelling currently enjoys off-street parking for two vehicles. If the development were to go ahead this would be reduced to just one space.

Policy DES1 of the of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan ([name] 2019) (DMP), at criterion 10 requires, amongst other things, new development to make adequate provision for parking taking account of the impact on local character and residential amenity, including the impact of parked vehicles.

Further DMP Policy TAP1 requires car parking for residential development to be provide in accordance with adopted standards unless satisfactory evidence is provided to demonstrate that non-compliance would not result in unacceptable harm. Such evidence could include on-street parking surveys, evidence of parking demand, and/or further information on accessibility. Development should not result in unacceptable levels of on-street parking demand in existing or new streets.

The Development is within a [name] site as defined in Annex 3 of the DMP. Annexe 4 of the [name] advises that a dwelling of this size should have a minimum of two spaces. Accordingly, if the development were to go ahead it would not accord with the provisions of Annex 4.

The appellants have not submitted any substantive evidence, as required by DMP Policy TAP1 to demonstrate that non-compliance would not result in unacceptable harm. They simply propose that any shortfall in carparking needed to serve the dwelling could be provide by utilising on-street parking provision within the development for residents and visitors. They suggest the use of a small parking area virtually opposite the appeal site and on-street parking in the access road.

I visited the site in the middle of the day when, I expect many residents would be away from home. Nevertheless, at the time of my visit the small parking area was occupied by large Luton style box vans. In addition, as identified by the Council, no doubt in the evenings or weekends, when residents are home, there is already some on-street parking. I believed, based on my experience, that the loss of this off-street parking space here would serve to increase on-street parking in the area. Which in turn would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would, by reason of the loss of an off-road parking space and resultant insufficient car parking provision within an area defined as low accessibility, lead to unacceptable pressure for on-street parking and would increase the level of street clutter along [address] Close and the wider development site, resulting in harm to the visual amenities of the area.

To allow the appeal, based on the limited evidence provided by the appellants as required by DMP Policy TAP1 would therefore be contrary to aims of [name] TAP1 and DES1, and the parking standards contained within Annex 3 of the Development Management Plan 2019 and guidance contained within the RBBC Local Character and Distinctiveness Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2021).

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.