Appeal 6002043

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal site relates to a terraced property with pedestrian access onto Hollins to the south. The site frontage consists of a low dry-stone wall and mature hedgerow. Such features are highly visible from the public highway which is the main route through the village.

The proposed development seeks planning permission to change the existing front garden into a driveway for two cars. This also includes a dropped kerb at the front of the property. The proposed works would result in the removal of the low dry-stone wall and mature hedgerow to form the driveway access.

The appeal site forms part of the wider historic hamlet of Hollins ( [site address] ). The dry-stone wall to the front of the property forms part of a network of roadside walls through the historic settlement and positively contributes to the character of the area. The removal of the roadside wall and hedgerow despite its overall size and scale would erode the historic character of the area and wider landscape character. The material choice and design would not sufficiently mitigate against the removal of such important features. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the history of the wall and hedge, but this would not alter my findings as the features still make a positive contribution to the area. Other properties in the area may have made alterations to their property to achieve a similar proposal but I am unaware of their planning history, and this would not justify harmful development.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SDC3, SDC12 and LC5 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, 2021 (LP) and Policies B8 and B9 of the Brampton Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NP). Together, amongst other matters, these policies explain that proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape, or to the important features or views, or other perceptual qualities such as tranquillity.

For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) relating to achieving well-designed places.

The appellant claims that there has been a misapplication of the above-mentioned policies. However, Policy SDC3 of the LP refers to harm to important features which I find to be relevant. Policy SDC12 refers to responding positively to local character which again I find to be relevant. Policy LC5 refers to extensions and alterations to dwellings and whilst the proposed development does not relate to works to the house itself, it does relate to the front of the property which still forms part of the dwelling. I therefore find this policy to be relevant in relation to the proposed development. Policy B8 of the NP as well as some of the above-mentioned policies refer to new development. Given the nature of the proposed development, I find it to fall within this category as it would create new development at the site by virtue of removing the wall and hedge and creating [address] parking spaces along with a dropped kerb. Policy B9 relates to dry-stone walls and recognises the importance of these and that they create a distinctive feature of the area. Whilst traditional dry-stone walls are likely to be mortar-free and comprised field boundaries, this does not mean that others elsewhere which comprise some mortar should not be conserved. The wall in question has a dry-stone wall appearance which forms part of a network of walls which contributes to the character of the area. The aim of Policy B9 is to conserve and enhance such walls and thus I find it relevant in the particular circumstances of this case.

The proposed development would involve new vehicle movements onto and off the public highway. The access to the driveway would also cross the footway. Given the limited space for turning within the site, vehicles would likely need to reverse into the parking area or reverse out of the property into the road. Such movements would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic movements along this section of the road to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. The appellant claims that visibility is good. However, insufficient detail has been provided in this regard. Based on the information provided, I am not sufficiently satisfied that the appropriate visibility splay is achievable or that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all highway users.

Other driveways elsewhere and limited visibility at other properties would not justify harmful development and I have assessed this scheme based on its own merits. I am also unaware of their planning history and thus they have no bearing on the outcome of my decision. The proposed development may remove vehicles from the highway, reduce obstruction, reduce risk of damage/injury and improve the visibility for other properties when utilising their off-street parking. However, this would not alter my findings nor be sufficient to justify the scheme. I do not consider the proposed approach to be a safer option for this site and many of the above issues could indeed be resolved if the occupiers utilised their designated parking bay across the road which is an option. Whilst the neighbouring property No 1 may have a larger vehicle which makes parking difficult, this is a civil matter which should be addressed between the occupiers. The recent incident at the site is noted but again this would not alter my findings. I do not dispute that there is a reliance on private car, but such could indeed be parked utilising the designated parking across from the site.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. It would therefore be contrary to Policy LC5 of the LP and Policy B12 of the NP which together, amongst other matters, ensures development does not harm highway and pedestrian safety. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to Chapter 9 of the Framework relating to promoting sustainable transport.

I recognise the support shown for the scheme, but this does not mean that the proposed development would not be harmful.

I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no other considerations that individually or cumulatively outweigh this harm and development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.