Appeal 6000873

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development provided on the planning application form has been replaced by an amended version on the decision notice and in subsequent appeal documents. I consider that subsequent description to accurately represent the proposal and I have therefore used it within this decision.

The submitted evidence indicates that the proposed work has already been carried out, and I saw that the development was in place at the time of my visit.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the area; and • Living conditions of nearby residents with regards to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is located on the busy through-road of [address]. The streetscape is made up of dwellings of varying designs. Despite the variety of dwellings, a feature of the streetscape is the setting of dwellings behind front gardens with a boundary adjacent to the highway made up of walls, railings or hedges. The evidence suggests that the wall to the front of the appeal site was an attractive feature constructed from brick with pillars on either side of a pedestrian access. This reflected its immediate neighbours in this short terrace.

Despite the variety in the designs of dwellings and boundary treatment, the arrangement of the front gardens and boundaries gives the streetscape a cohesive and attractive character.

Within that context, the forecourt parking appears as an incongruous addition. The removal of the boundary wall and decorative features contrasts uncomfortably with the adjacent properties. The hard surfacing of the open forecourt and the associated walls introduce a stark open area compared to nearby gardens. Vehicle parking on the forecourt would also lead to a car dominated frontage of the host dwelling, which would jar with the front gardens of neighbouring properties. The installation of pillars with stone copings and the use of more appropriate materials would do little to mitigate for the unacceptable appearance of the proposal as well as the loss of the attractive boundary wall and garden.

The appellant has referred to other driveways and forecourt parking in the streetscape. However, it has not been demonstrated that the circumstances that led to the creation of these features are a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. In any event the driveways and parking I observed served to confirm the harm to character and appearance that can arise from development of this nature within this streetscape, as does the appeal proposal.

I therefore conclude that the proposal will lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the design requirements of Policy Env6 of the [name] 2012 (the [name]) and Policy DM26 of the Development Management DPD 2018 (the DMDPD). The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to achieving well-designed places.

The proposal would bring vehicle parking and associated manoeuvres close to the front elevation of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. However, the number of traffic movements generated by a single dwelling would be limited as would be the effects of noise and disturbance on nearby dwellings. This is particularly the case given the context of noise from traffic on the busy thoroughfare of [address].

The Council also refers to the reduced ‘buffer’ effect from the loss of the walled and landscaped garden. However, the wall to the front of the site would have been relatively low which would have limited its effect as a noise barrier from traffic on [address]. Given the size of the front garden, any soft landscaping or planting would have had minimal effect in reducing noise from the highway. On that basis, I consider that the loss of the wall and garden would have minimal effect on noise levels affecting nearby dwellings.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore not be contrary to the amenity requirements of Policy Env7 of the [name] and Policy DM29 of the DMDPD.

I have had regard to the lack of allocated on-street parking for the property and the issues in respect of securing on-street parking at peak hours referred to by the appellant. I am also mindful of the benefits to the appellant’s family in improving facilities at the dwelling. However, these issues and benefits are not of such weight that they would outweigh the significant harm to character and appearance.

I note the frustrations expressed by the appellant in relation to the level of communication from the Council leading up to this appeal. However, this is not a matter for this appeal which I have determined on its planning merits.

Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of living conditions, I have concluded that the proposal would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole in respect of securing well-designed places.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.