Appeal 6001021

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted in January 2021 for a replacement detached dwelling. The application form for the development subject of this appeal refers to conditions 1 and 3 which do not refer to the approved plans. The appellant has since confirmed that he seeks to vary condition 2 to move the approved parking area at the rear (east) of the new dwelling to the front (west) of the property.

The application form also indicates that development started in April 2021. I was able to see the new dwelling during my site visit and that the ground level facing [address] had been excavated, with a retaining wall separating the higher land towards the dwelling of No 1. Some pea shingle was laid, but the grasscrete surface and pedestrian access steps to the dwelling, as indicated on the proposed site plan (drawing no PL-229-01), were not installed. Vehicular access was also restricted by safety fencing. The appeal development is therefore part-retrospective in nature, and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Following my site visit, the appellant provided a covering letter authored by [name] and dated 15 April 2025, as the appellant stated that this was not published on the Council’s online public file. That letter refers to a combined Stage [address] [name] (RSA), which is not before me in its full form. I also note that the Council’s officer report refers to a [name] by [name] received on 29 May 2025, which is also not before me.

The Council has since confirmed that it received the RSA, which was taken into consideration during consideration of the application. The Council also stated that neighbours were aware of the abovementioned additional documents through Local Councillor advice following communication with the Council planner, and neighbours submitted updated responses where they felt it necessary. However, the evidence before me indicates that the above additional documents were not formally published for re-consultation with neighbours.

Moreover, the Council’s Highway Development Engineer’s consultation comments include a copy of a swept path analysis drawing from the RSA, which indicates a substantially deeper parking and turning area towards the appeal dwelling. This forms a substantial difference and a fundamental change to the application. Seeking and accepting all the above additional documents for consideration under this appeal may thus prejudice interested parties that do not appear to have been formally consulted by the Council. My decision is therefore instead based on the initially submitted plans before the Council when the application was determined1.

Having regard to the evidence before me, the main issues are: • the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect on highway safety.

The appeal site (No 1) comprises a detached dwelling located at the eastern side of [address], within a long and narrow plot near to its junction with [address]. There is a footway only on one side of [address], with hedgerow and rolling hills beyond the other side of that road, immediately opposite No 1.

Plots immediately to each side of No 1 have no vehicular accesses off [address], as well as the [name] site further south, and they contain trees, hedgerows and grassed areas facing the road. Buildings within these plots, along with the appeal dwelling, are also set considerably back from [address]. The context and setting of the proposed parking area is therefore spacious and verdant in character, despite the linear form of buildings along the road.

No 1’s ground levels decline significantly from the dwelling towards [address]. The parking area is harshly cut in to this sloping land and dominates the plot frontage. Despite the intended use of grasscrete, the proposal would form a significant departure from the established character of the vicinity as described above, resulting in visual harm to the immediate streetscene.

Whilst most other dwellings further beyond each side of No [address] contain front vehicular access points or parking areas, including some front garages, many of these frontages also contain hedgerows and shrubbery. Such dwellings are also sited closer to the road than No 1, and thus have a more suburban character. By contrast, the proposed front parking area cut into the slope would not be sufficiently contained amongst established or new landscaping within No 1, and would visually detract from its surrounding spacious context. 1 Location plan 1:1250 @ A4 (undated); Approved, existing and proposed site plans dated October 2024 (Drawing no. PL-229-01).

The appellant is open to accepting reasonable conditions regarding materials and surfacing, retention or provision of soft landscaping, the width and layout of the proposed driveway, and preservation of boundary treatments. The higher grassed area towards the dwelling of No 1 would be retained. However, given the location of the vehicular crossover relative to the parking area it serves and the proposed steps up the dwelling, I do not envisage any meaningful landscaping opportunities to mitigate the adverse visual impact of the appeal development. It would therefore result in an unacceptably discordant impact.

I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy 37 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) (adopted 2019). This policy requires, amongst other things, a high standard of design that positively contributes to the existing streetscene, complements the layout of adjacent buildings and areas, and provides opportunities to create attractive settings with hard or soft landscaping.

The location of the retaining wall is such that if vehicles entered No 1 in forward gear from [address], to exit they would have to reverse out on to that road. The footway either side of the vehicular access is narrow. To the north, visibility exiting No 1 is somewhat restricted by a lamppost and tall shrubbery, although the earth bank sloping down to the footway allows for clearer views. Southern visibility is notably restricted by shrubbery along the side boundary towards the footway.

The Council describes [address] as a classified road and local distributor. The appellant’s evidence does not dispute this. Although my visit was a snapshot in time, I found this to be a well-used route, including by cyclists and pedestrians.

Even if vehicles exit from No [address] in forward gear, in the absence of details showing available sight lines, I cannot reach a conclusion as to whether road safety would not be significantly adversely affected. Compliance with Policy 32 of the LP has therefore not been demonstrated in this respect.

LP Policy 34 permits vehicle crossings on classified roads, subject to an RSA demonstrating acceptability to the Council. As already set out in the above Background and [name] section, for procedural reasons the appellant’s RSA and supporting documents do not form part of the appeal considerations. I cannot therefore make a finding on the abovementioned aspect of Policy 34.

The first refusal reason cites conflict with LP Policy 30. However, this governs the numerical amount of off-street parking provision, and does not refer to matters such as access and layout. I have thus found no conflict with this policy.

Both reasons for refusal cite conflict with the Council’s Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted 2023). Whilst the SPD is detailed and wide-ranging, the Council has not set out where the specific conflict with this guidance lies.

The second reason for refusal also refers to concerns regarding potential harm to neighbouring amenity and land stability, in respect of the proximity of excavation works to neighbouring boundaries and the lack of structural detail. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, suitably worded conditions could have been imposed to secure such details, including drainage measures. The lack of material harm in the above respects however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

It is put to me that nearby properties have been granted planning permission for similar front parking arrangements. Whilst the specific locations are not before me, I have determined the appeal scheme based on its own site-specific context, which is materially different to those of the nearby vehicular access and parking areas that I saw during my visit.

During my visit, I noted that the area east of the dwelling of No 1 had also been excavated, including steps and retaining walls. However, not all such works are included on the proposed plans for consideration under this appeal. For clarity, that area of additional development has therefore had no bearing on my decision.

The appeal development would have harmful visual effects when regard is paid to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There is conflict with the development plan for the area arising from such harm that amounts to conflict with the plan as a whole.

My conclusion of harm on the highway safety main issue is based on an absence of adequate evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, had I concluded favourably on that main issue, it would not have affected the overall outcome of the appeal, given my finding of harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme would improve parking accessibility to No 1’s front door on an elevation facing [address], which would be a more practical and convenient arrangement for residential and family use than the layout already approved. Such benefits however do not outweigh the extent of visual harm that I have identified.

The RKS Associates covering letter states that the crossover serving No 1 was installed by the Council’s Highways Department in 2023 under a vehicle crossover application. The Council has since stated that this was done without seeking its “Planning Highways” approval. This indicates an error on the Council’s part and appears to have led to further development subject of this appeal. These circumstances do not however justify allowing this appeal, given the visual harm I have identified. Matters relating to the crossover’s installation are for the appellant and Council to resolve.

The above considerations do not justify a decision other than in accordance with

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.