Appeal 3351826

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the impact of the development on a) the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area; and b) highway safety.

The appeal site is a two-storey, mid-terrace dwelling on the south side of [address]. The house is in an elevated position due to a slight fall in topography towards the public highway. The front garden is mainly laid to block paving with a low-level supporting wall at the boundary with the footway.

It was apparent from my site visit that many dwellings have off-street parking at the front on hardscaped driveways. With this in mind, I am satisfied that the provision of the crossover and parking area could be acceptable in principle in this location. The Council has pointed to an appeal decision at [address] (Inspectorate reference APP/K2230/D/20/3249712), however this scheme was dismissed as it would have resulted in the loss of a street tree and a larger amount of vegetation than the appeal proposals before me. Furthermore, supporting walls increase in height towards the far western end of [address] reflecting the downward slope of the highway, and as such the extent of engineering works would likely be more substantial, increasing the possibility of harm in character terms.

Notwithstanding the above, the plans as submitted are somewhat lacking in detail, and as a result I share the Council's concerns that the scheme would give rise to a harsh form of development that could cause harm to the visual amenity of the streetscene. Although many other existing frontages are similarly devoid of planting, I am of the view that this should not be encouraged as cumulatively such urbanisation detracts from the street scene. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

The appellant has indicated on an overhead image that more soft landscaping features could be added to the driveway. However, it is not clear whether these would be at ground level or incorporated into larger supporting walls, and as such I cannot form an impression of the general appearance of the development.

Consequently, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and local area, contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), which seeks to secure proposals of acceptable scale and appearance. The scheme would also be inconsistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The Council has indicated that the proposed hard standing would have a gradient of 16%, whereas the [name] states that for single car driveways the gradient should not exceed 10%. Therefore the Authority considers the gradient a safety issue, which could also result in damage to vehicles and to the footway.

The appellant states that he will look to ensure the gradient is in line with the guidance. Nevertheless, I have not been presented with a plan showing any amended sections across the land from the highway into the appeal site. As such, taking a precautionary approach to this issue, I cannot be certain that the works would provided for safe entering and exiting manoeuvres, which could endanger other drivers and pedestrians. There may be other driveways locally with gradients that also exceed the guidance, but these do not justify further development that could prejudice highway conditions. The letter from the County Council to the previous owner is not a planning permission, so does not grant approval in this respect.

I conclude on this matter that the development would be harmful to highway safety, failing Policy P3 of the Council's Local Plan First Review (1994) and the [name].

In regard to the above and every other issue advanced, I dismiss the appeal.