Appeal 3324699

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for alterations to the existing garden area to the front of the property to form off-road parking including formation of dropped kerb at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 23/00806/FUL ([name]

dated 9 March 2023 subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: P002 REV P01.

The hard surfacing to the front of the site shall be constructed of permeable/porous materials, or measures shall be put in place which prevent surface water from spilling onto the public highway prior to the first use of the parking area.

The description of the proposal differs from the application form to the decision notice. That included above is taken from the application form, excluding wording that is not a description of development and adequately describes the proposal.

The evidence suggests that an amended plan has been submitted within the appeal documentation. I must however determine the proposal on the basis of the plan on which the Council made its decision and on which interested people’s views were sought.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/J4423 /D/23/3324699

The appeal property is a mid-terraced property of traditional and established appearance. It is set above [address] and has a garden that is set at a higher level than the road, behind a stone wall and including some planting.

The traditional and established appearance of this terrace is likely to have been one framed by front walls with front gardens set beyond. However, this arrangement is not reflective of the whole terrace as it currently stands which has a rather mixed appearance to its frontage.

For example, whilst not extensive within the terrace, set ups involving the provision of an open frontage with hardstanding to allow a vehicle to park were in place at No.s 504, 522, 524 and [address]. Some gardens are extensively planted, some are not, especially those where a parking area has been created.

Therefore, the addition of a similar feature to those existing would not harm the character and appearance of the area given the mixed nature of the existing frontages within this particular terrace, especially given that two of those properties are very close by to the west of the appeal site.

The proposal would therefore not conflict with policies BE5 and H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998) which amongst other things require good design and development that would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings.

Although guidelines 1 and 2 of the SPG1 specifically seem to relate to extensions and extensions to dwellings specifically, even were I to consider these relevant I do not consider that the proposal would conflict with this guidance which require proposals to be compatible with the character and built form of an area and not detract from the dwelling or the general appearance of the street or locality.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three-year time limit. It is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to the surfacing is necessary in the interests of highway safety and to reduce the risk of surface water flooding.

There is nothing including the provisions of the Framework2 to indicate that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.