Appeal 3334614

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be afforded safe and suitable access.

The appeal site (No.21) is located within a late-twentieth-century development of two-storey family housing and it seems that many of the properties were originally built with an integral garage and single off-road parking space in tandem or other configurations of garaging and parking with similar levels of provision. A combination of factors including the tight, dense layout, proliferation of private vehicles and a tendency for garages not to be used for day-to-day parking has resulted in an environment dominated by cars and hard paving with only residues of greenery to frontages. No.21 sits adjacent to a relatively congested corner grouping of 3 houses with which it shares an access over a single length of dropped kerb. My site visit took place after the end of the working day during which it became apparent that there is significant pressure on the limited on-road parking opportunities and this arises in part from residential overflow and the high proportion of frontage occupied by pavement crossings/dropped kerbs.

The proposal would absorb the existing garage into residential accommodation and extend that built form over part of the parking space leaving an area roughly1 7m wide and 4m deep between the footway and the front wall of the house as proposed to be extended. The appellant provides images which show two vehicles can be parked off road but in a diagonal layout. However, this conflicts with block plans2 provided which attempt to show that the front 1 The appellant has provided no scaled plan or dimension so these are estimated distances which may be inaccurate. 2 21AC [name]-003 extension would still allow perpendicular parking for two vehicles. These plans, both lack dimensions and are at an unsuitably small scale which does not allow for effective scaling such that the parking arrangements cannot be properly assessed. The submitted plans are, therefore, unconvincing as to the potential to park standard vehicles perpendicular to (and without overhanging) the footway.

Further, the proposed ‘diagonal’ parking appearing in the appellant statement appears to indicate that the vehicles shown could require access over land which is neither within the area intended to be controlled by the permission sought (‘red line plan’) nor defined as highway/pavement crossing. Whilst it may be that the appellant has rights which would allow such a manoeuvre over adjacent block paving3, that has not been demonstrated. Consequently, even if the appeal were capable of being determined in favour of the appellant based on the submission that the frontage can conveniently accommodate suitably sized spaces, there is insufficient clarity in terms of drawn information to demonstrate how that can be achieved. Awkward, multiple or potentially dangerous vehicle movements would likely result in frequent displacement of household vehicles onto the already congested highway.

The Council refer to multiple policies, many of which are not directly relevant to the matter to be determined including out-of-date versions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Nevertheless, for the reasons I set out the proposal would conflict with Policies A1(3) and A9(1) of the Gloucester City Plan (2011-

(GCP) which seek to ensure extensions to dwellings do not result in a cramped or overdeveloped site and provide adequate off-street parking. I therefore conclude the development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and therefore, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.