Appeal 3349647

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 12 December 2024. However, the sections pertinent to this appeal have not changed to such an extent as to affect the matters raised by the main parties. It has not therefore been necessary to seek their views and the revised version has been referenced in this decision.

Planning permission was granted at the site in January 2024 for the lowering of the bank to front of the dwelling and formation of single parking space with retaining wall. The submitted drawings identified the use of brick sets permeable paving and the provision of landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the proposal.

The appellant is seeking to vary the conditions to allow the retention of the existing tarmac ground surface. Consequently, the main issue is the effect that varying the conditions would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is located at the front of [site address] (A25). The topography is very steep with the land sloping up and away from the A25. Access to the site is via a narrow accessway. The area is predominantly residential in character with a wide variety of detached and semi-detached properties, of varying design, mass and utilising a mixture of facing materials.

I acknowledge that other properties in the area feature a mixture of parking surfaces which include ‘crazy paving’ and tarmac. However, due to the parking space’s location cut into the landscaped bank to the front of [site address] , it is a more visually striking feature within the street scene than the other nearby driveways. As a result, the proposed ground surface materials have a greater effect on the character of the area.

The tarmac ground surface has a utilitarian appearance, which is at odds to the pleasantly landscaped bank which the parking space cuts into, and which forms its immediate backdrop. As a result, the tarmac surface is a visually discordant addition, which has a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, the variation of conditions 1 and 2 would conflict with Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – [name] (2014) and Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008) (CS). Collectively, the policies require new development to be of a high quality that responds to the local character of the area and integrates effectively with its surroundings.

The Council also alleges a conflict with Policy CSP21 of the CS with regards to this matter. However, my attention has not been drawn to any words in it that are relevant to this issue. The policy has therefore not been determinative in my

The appellant indicates that the installed drain and soakaway is adequate to disperse surface water from the parking space. Be that as it may, this matter does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I have considered all matters that have been raised, but none demonstrate that conditions 1 and 2 are not reasonable and necessary. The variation to the conditions would result in a development which would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Conditions 1 and 2 comply with the tests for planning conditions that are set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the Framework as a whole. There are no material considerations of such weight that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.