Appeal 3300061

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of loft into habitable accommodation with rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/00683/HOU, dated 24 March 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

In the interests of accuracy and brevity I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal used in its decision notice in preference to that used in the original application form.

An assessment is contained in the officer report as to the design and appearance of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring living conditions. The Council found the proposal acceptable in these respects, and I have no reason to disagree. I should add that I took particular note of the objection raised by a neighbouring resident at No [address], but I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a material effect on the level of privacy currently enjoyed by its residents.

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

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling fronting [site address] (A30). It forms part of a modest, modern development of 11 dwellings served by a cul-de-sac, called [address], which is a private road. Parking spaces are provided off the cul-de-sac, which is pleasantly landscaped. The appellant wishes to create an additional bedroom in the loft to cater for a growing family.

Based on the application of its parking standards1 the Council takes the view that ‘as a result of the development, the site would have a shortfall of 2.25 parking spaces’. This is because, in the Council’s view, the additional bedroom would make the dwelling 3 bedroomed, generating a requirement of 3.25 spaces whereas the applicant can only offer a single parking space under his control.

The standards relied upon by the Council in its Guidance are 14 years old, and The Guidance provides that: The key national policy documents which have been considered in preparing this report are PPS1, Supplement to PPS1, PPS3, PPG13 and the consultation document PPS4.

However, these aspects of national planning policy and guidance were replaced a decade or so ago upon the publication of the first edition of the NPPF2.

Moreover, the document’s title refers to the guidance as being ‘interim’, which strongly suggests that the Guidance would be applicable for a short period of time before being reviewed and replaced. Indeed, the Guidance explains that it was expected that a Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would be adopted following the adoption of the Council’s Core Strategy, then in the early course of preparation. However, the [name] never progressed to adoption, and no SPD has been prepared.

Whilst the Guidance is material to my considerations it attracts limited weight since it is based on national policies which no longer exist, and it has not been reviewed, as was originally intended, in the light of changing policy guidance at national and local levels.

The officer report on the original appliaction asserts that the alleged shortfall in parking provision ‘...would put extra pressure on the local highways network’. But no adequate explanation and certainly no evidence has been provided as to the ‘pressure’ to which the Council refers, either now or in the future.

It seems to me that if the current parking provision in [address] were considered substandard under the terms of the Council’s Guidance, then this would already have had ramifications on the adjacent [site address] . However, no evidence to this effect has been forthcoming3.

Whilst my visit took place mid-morning, I saw no evidence of adverse impacts due to parking on [site address] . Moreover, I saw that communal areas within the cul-de-sac could feasibly be used for limited parking, which would in my view satisfy the theoretical additional parking demand generated by the proposal, should it ever arise in reality. 1 Parking Provision Interim Guidance (2008) 2 The National Planning Policy Framework 3 A local resident expressed concern that residents of [address] may park in nearby [address], but provides no convincing evidence that this may already be occurring. 2

I note the Council’s point that no additional parking spaces would be provided within the appeal site’s curtilage, but [address] (including the drive itself, parking spaces, and other landscaped areas) is managed collectively by and on behalf of all its residents. No resident of [address] has objected to the proposal or made any reference to parking pressures.

The Council makes a general reference to the NPPF in its reason for refusal. However, the Framework also provides: Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

The Council has not produced any convincing evidence or demonstrated that such consequence would arise.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development could proceed without harming highway safety. Accordingly, I find no conflict with those provisions of policy INF3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 or policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan(Replacement)1996-2006, requiring new development to make appropriate or adequate parking provision.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials.

It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations including the comments made by the Hook Parish Council, but none outweighs those considerations which led me to my conclusions.