Appeal 3346101

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety and movement.

The appeal site is located in the [address] Conservation Area. It is a semi-detached dwelling on the south-western side of [address]. Its semi-pair is no.70 to its south east. It stands at a slightly higher level than no.70, and no.74 is on higher ground than no.72. There are many instances of front forecourt (on-site) car parking at [address] dwellings.

The proposed development includes the formation of a new vehicle crossover, a reduction of front garden levels, the creation of a vehicle parking hardstanding, new front entrance steps, a path and a boundary wall.

There is a statutory duty on me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area when considering the impacts of a development proposal.

The character of the [address] Conservation Area in the vicinity of the appeal site is partly created by dwellings with a similar design of canted ground floor window beneath a projecting continuous tiled porch, with major and minor canted bay first floor windows beneath deep projecting eaves, supported on brick corbels. There is often soft green landscaping in the front forecourt areas. Photographs dated 23 October 2023 from the appellant show some previous soft landscaping in the front garden of the appeal site. The proposed scheme would provide some soft landscaping and a sympathetic boundary treatment in addition to the hardstanding area and I am of the view that this would adequately preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Turning to the proposed crossover and on-site parking, the [site address] Vehicle Crossover Application Guidance states at paragraph A1 that: “The depth of the area you intend to park your vehicle, (forecourt/property frontage) within the property (measured at right angles (90 degrees) from the highway boundary (Where your garden wall, fence or hedge touches the pavement) to the nearest section of the property façade, (house brickwork, step or bay window) must be at least 4.8 metres to reduce the risk of vehicles overhanging the highway.”

The nearest section of the property façade is the bay window exterior sub-cill. The relevant measurement to the back of the pavement is less than the required 4.8m. Some of the submitted plans show the distance as only 4.60m or 4.62m. The appellant highlights that the sub-cill is about 1.5m above the garden ground level and that at that height it is considered that it is a minor encroachment which should not be considered when measuring the parking bay length. It is said that it would not have an impact on parking a vehicle because any parked vehicle would lean away from the house as the parking bay would slope from the house down to the road.

I have considered these points but neither justify a departure from the Guidance in this case. I consider that the cill would potentially restrict a vehicle parking on the proposed hardstanding causing encroachment over the public footway. The rear of a private light vehicle can be vertical in shape. A sloped hardstanding would not necessarily avoid the need to have a minimum length of 4.8m for the on-site perpendicular parking space. Consequently, I am concerned that the proposed development would result in a parked vehicle overhanging the public footway and therefore lead to harm to highway and pedestrian safety and movement. 10.I conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to highway and pedestrian safety and movement contrary to policy 66 and Appendix 1 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2024) and the London Borough of [site address] Vehicle Crossover Application Guidance (dated May 2022).

I have noted that other on-site perpendicular hardstandings with crossovers have been granted planning permission by the Council, nevertheless, I have determined this appeal on its own particular merits and circumstances as I am obliged to do, and I find that there would be unacceptable harm. 12.Having considered all relevant representations, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.