Appeal 6001796

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of the proposal in the banner heading is taken from the decision notice and appeal form, which more accurately and precisely reflects the proposal than the description in the application form.

It has been brought to my attention that an enforcement notice was issued against the outbuilding in its current form. It is not the purpose of this appeal to determine the lawfulness of the existing structure, and I have made my assessment based on the plans submitted within the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal property is located along [address], a residential street characterised by dwellings set back from the highway with forecourts and driveways positioned between the dwellings and the road. These frontages are largely undeveloped, creating a sense of openness that allows the dwellings to be viewed clearly within their plots and contributes positively to the spacious quality of the street. While there are examples of attached garages on the opposite site of the Appeal Planning Officer 6001796 road, these are attached to the host dwellings, set behind front parking areas and do not significantly interrupt the prevailing character of open development.

The proposal would involve the erection of a detached car port/garage sited forward of the front elevation, within the open frontage between the appeal property and [address]. This would introduce built form into the forecourt, appearing visually prominent and at odds with the established pattern of development in the area, eroding the spacious quality that characterises the street. Although boundary treatments and landscaping exist either side of the forecourt, these would not sufficiently mitigate the visual impact of the structure given its scale and proximity to the highway.

For the reasons above, I conclude the proposal results in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area in eroding the spaciousness previously afforded by the open driveway. The development is therefore in conflict with Policy CP1 and CP12 of the [name] ([name] 2011) (CS) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document ([name] 2013) (DMPLDD) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development ensures design respects local distinctiveness and avoid being excessively prominent in relation to the general street scene.

The appeal property is located along [address], a road that provides access to [address] from [address]. Although a residential area, the road is moderately trafficked with speed management measures in place. The houses are set back from the highway, with resident parking provision in front of the properties on private forecourts and driveways. At the time of my site visit, I observed informal on-street parking along the highway, with vehicles parked on the highway and pavements between the driveways.

The appeal property is located at a bend of [address] road. It benefits from a forecourt shared with the neighbouring semi-detached property of [address] House. This shared access provides four parking spaces with provision for manoeuvring and turning to enable arriving and leaving in forward gear. The road bend and vegetation at the site access restricts visibility along [address] and leaving the site in a forward gear allows for better visibility.

The proposal would introduce a car port and garage positioned across the two parking spaces associated with the appeal property. The appellant refers to no objection being given to the parking arrangement in the 2006 planning application for the construction of the dwellings1. However, since the time of that submission, standards have since been updated. The Roads in [name] (January 201) requires garages to be a width of 3m and a depth of 6m. While the proposed garage element would have a depth of approximately 6.1m, the lean-to element would have a reduced depth of approximately 4.2m, with the overall width of the structure at approximately 5.2m. These dimensions would therefore not provide adequate space to accommodate the parking of two modern vehicles in accordance with the local standards.

As a result, the proposal would result in the loss of two usable parking spaces, increasing pressure on the remaining parking provision. At the time of my site visit, 1 06/2137/FUL Appeal Planning Officer 6001796 a vehicle was parked in front of the structure and therefore it is reasonable to assume that vehicles would continue to do so. This would compromise the available manoeuvring and turning space within the shared forecourt meaning that vehicles would need to reverse out of or into the parking spaces.

Due to the vegetation, bend in the road and on street parking, the lack of clear visibility means that vehicles reversing out of the site into passing traffic and pedestrians would cause a hazard to the occupants of those vehicles and to other users on [address]. The lack of appropriately sized parking or garage spaces would also likely lead to parking on the highway. The area already suffers from on street parking and additional on street parking would lead to further highway safety issues such as parking in inappropriate locations or causing obstructions to roads and footways.

For the reasons above, I conclude the proposal results in harm to highway safety through the reduction of adequate parking provision. The development is therefore in conflict with Policy CP10 of the CS, and DM13 of the DMPLDD which amongst other things, seek to ensure development provides adequate provision of parking, with safe and adequate means of access.

The appellant refers to several paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) that promote sustainable development and the efficient and effective use of land, with a positive approach taken to decision making. Given this is a domestic addition, with minor economic benefits and no addition to housing supply, this carries little weight. Furthermore, the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character, which I have concluded this proposal does not demonstrate and therefore is not supported by the Framework. [name] 56 advises the use of conditions to mitigate unacceptable development, the harm identified arises from its siting and harm to highway safety, neither of which could be mitigated through conditions. As such, the Framework considerations raised do not outweigh the identified harm or the conflict with the development plan.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.