Appeal 3340646

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the installation of dropped kerb to facilitate access to forecourt parking to the front of the property at [site address] , WOKING, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2023/0865, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Site/[name] as Proposed (CDA-199-041 [name]).

It is clear from the evidence that a parking space set in loose stone chippings has been added to the front garden of [site address] , albeit there was no dropped kerb at the time of my visit. The appellant considers that the stone chippings fall beyond the definition of development and the scope of my assessment. However, it is not for me to reach a finding on that issue within this appeal. Instead, I have assessed the appeal on the description of development and the plans before me, which show a dropped kerb and the front garden set in stone chippings and used for parking.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises an end of terrace property within a large corner plot, on the northern side of Falstone. Properties on the northern side of the road are terraced, with open frontages by design, now formed of a mixture of lawns, tarmac and chippings. Parking takes place at high density within the highway and within bays and garage courts. The bays and courts appear to cut in towards front elevations, and parked vehicles are perpendicular to the road. On the opposite side of the carriageway, most properties have off street parking within front gardens, on significant areas of hardstanding.

The dropped kerb and use of the front garden for parking would not be uncharacteristic of the street scene. The perpendicular front garden parking space would appear akin to the nearby parking bays and courts, and the stone chippings reflect finish materials elsewhere within Falstone. [name] 36 has a larger corner plot, it can accommodate a vehicle and retain the hedge on the eastern edge. This results in the development respecting and making a positive contribution to the street scene.

For the reasons identified above, I conclude that the development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development is therefore compliant with Policy CS21 of the [name] (2012), Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016), [name] (2015) and NPPF insofar as they require schemes to respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene.

The Council consider that granting permission, would make it difficult to resist future proposals for hardstanding/driveways on the landscaped frontages in respect of the northern side of the road. However, each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits. Many of the front gardens on the north side of the street appeared restrictively shallow in any event.

Given that the site is already in use for a parking, a time condition is not needed in this case. The Council have suggested a condition relating to visibility zones. This does not seem necessary as a vehicle leaving the site can be positioned to gain adequate visibility, and road users turning into the road will be on the opposite side of the road, thereby providing separation.

A condition restricting the use of the parking area is also suggested. No compelling evidence has been put to me that an alternative use is likely or would be in anyway inappropriate, therefore, this condition is not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.