Appeal 6000153

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice rather than that found on the original application form. This document describes the development as “Moving existing bike shed, addition of small front porch, landscaping and part of front boundary treatment to facilitate construction of 2.4m wide dropped kerb providing access to front garden parking for one vehicle. Electric charging point to also be installed by the new porch for home charging.”

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in December 2024, during the consideration of this appeal. Insofar as is directly relevant to the appeal, there are no substantive changes and no parties have been prejudiced as a result.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether or not the site is an appropriate location for the proposal with particular regard to adopted local planning policy and highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling which is part of a terrace of four similar properties situated on Meadway, a residential road. Property designs within the area differ but a sense of cohesion is nevertheless created by similarly sized front garden areas set behind low level boundary treatments which are common to the majority of properties in the area. Street trees and mature planting within the front garden areas contribute to a green and verdant character and appearance.

The proposed works would involve the partial removal of the existing front boundary treatment in order to facilitate the use of the garden area as a driveway. This removal would interrupt the consistent line of boundary treatments which is shared by the terrace of which No 34 is part as well as other properties along this stretch of the road. Furthermore, despite the inclusion of bee friendly bedding plants and the retention of the tree labelled as T6 on the plans, the introduction of a large area of hardstanding in place of a grassed area would reduce the level of greenery which is present at this location. As such, the proposal would erode key characteristics which, together, serve to form the character and appearance of the area.

I acknowledge that a number of other properties along the road have openings and areas of hardstanding in the front garden area. However, the existence of other examples does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission; each case must be determined on its own merits based on the specific circumstances at each site. These circumstances will rarely, if ever, be identical. A number of the other properties, for example, may have been determined under a different policy context.

Moreover, in the area immediately surrounding the appeal property the prevailing character remains one of green, enclosed front garden areas. Importantly, the appeal property is within a terrace where the other properties have similar, enclosed, verdant front garden areas. The removal of part of the fence and the inclusion of hardstanding in this location would visually interrupt the unity of the terrace as a whole and would appear visually jarring within its context.

For the reasons set out above I consider that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy LP1 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, July 2018 (LP) which requires all development to be of high architectural and urban design quality which can demonstrate its compatibility with local character including the relationship to existing townscape, development patterns, views, local grain and frontages as well as scale, height, massing, density, landscaping, proportions, form, materials and detailing.

The proposal would also fail to meet the aims of the London Borough of [name] Planning Document, June 2020 ([name]) which sets out that the Council will normally resist replacement of gardens with hard surfacing for car parking as they consider the space between the road and the buildings fronting an important part of the environment, which can be seriously affected by the introduction of garden parking; for instance in schemes such as that proposed where the harmony and continuity of the street frontage would be interrupted.

The appeal site is located in close proximity to a speed bump on the road. A lamppost is also situated very close to the proposed dropped kerb and access. At the time of my site visit I noted that the road is regularly trafficked, though vehicle speeds were fairly low due to the traffic calming measures nearby. I also observed that the appeal site is in close proximity to a school safety zone.

The Council’s Transport SPD contains a section regarding [name] stating that, in order for a crossover to be acceptable, visibility splays must be provided at the back of footway so that drivers can see pedestrians, particularly small children approaching on the footway. The SPD specifies that, as a minimum, pedestrian sightlines of 2.1m x 2.4m, will be required and these must be achieved within the boundary of the property so that residents can control the height of vegetation growing within these areas. The plans before me do not demonstrate that such visibility splays are indeed possible.

Furthermore, the SPD is clear that boundary treatment and landscaping within pedestrian and vehicle sightline envelopes should not exceed 0.6m in height. The plans before me indicate that a picket fence of around 1m in height is proposed which would fail to accord with the guidance contained within the SPD and would be likely to impede visibility.

Additionally, the SPD sets out that, in order to ensure that street furniture does not interfere with vehicle access and sightlines, crossovers will be required to be located at least 2.5m from lamp columns, telegraph poles and other street furniture and road features such as speed cushions. The plans before me indicate that the lamppost would be only around 1.5m from the proposed crossover. The proximity to the lamppost would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the visibility from the property.

The appeal site is located in an area close to a school where pedestrian activity is likely. I also noted at my site visit that the road is regularly trafficked by other vehicles and off-street, on-pavement, marked permit holder bays appear to be well used. Parked vehicles in the vicinity of the appeal site would have the potential to further reduce the visibility of the surrounding pavements and road for drivers of any vehicle using the proposed vehicular crossover and dropped kerb.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not meet the requirements set out within the [name] and the specific features of the proposal and the area surrounding the site are such that I am not satisfied that sufficient visibility splays could be provided so as to ensure the safety of pedestrians and other vehicles using the highway.

The appellant has suggested that by removing the fence entirely and making other minor alterations to the scheme the required visibility splays could indeed be provided. However, I do not have any specific details before me to demonstrate that this would indeed be the case, or to indicate in any detail what any revised proposal would be. As such, the evidence before me is not sufficient to convince me that the proposed amendments would have the desired effect, or that they would not cause additional harm in other ways, such as to the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, I consider that the site would not be an appropriate location for the proposal with particular regard to adopted local planning policy and highway safety. The proposal would thereby be contrary to Policy LP44 of the LP which seeks to ensure that new development does not have a detrimental effect on the highway and LP45 which states that the Council will resist the provision of front garden car parking unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no material impact on road or pedestrian safety. The proposal would also be at odds with the guidance contained within the Council’s Transport SPD.

I recognise the appellant’s intention to improve the quality of the soft landscaping within the front garden area. However, such improvements could be made as part of a scheme which would not include hardstanding and this benefit, therefore, attracts limited weight. I also acknowledge the appellant’s desire to live an environmentally conscious life, to have the ability to charge their electric car at home and to park close to home without fear of damage to their vehicle or risk to their children in crossing the road.

Additionally, I note that the appellant received pre-application advice from the Council’s Transport Team regarding the proposal. However, such advice is given without prejudice and the specific details and design of the proposal is such that it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, would conflict with the [name] and would cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety.

I have given careful regard to all of the above considerations. However, none are sufficient to dissuade me from the conclusions I have reached above or to outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted. Therefore, taking all other matters raised into account, the appeal is dismissed.