Appeal 6002128

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is a detached property, situated in an elevated position on [address]. The property is set back from the road, has a low profile, and is partially concealed by landscaping. The front garden has a traditional stone retaining wall going past the front of the property, which is continuous, of reasonable height and provides a front boundary for several neighbouring properties.

There is a small gap in the wall which allows for pedestrian access to the dwelling via a set of steps. The appeal site is located on a bend in the road, and some mature street trees are located near to the site along the pavement. A bus stop is positioned very close to the site.

The proposal seeks to create a driveway with two access points with dropped kerbs, which would include levelling of part of the site. The existing stone wall would be demolished and rebuilt further into the site. A dwarf wall would be constructed to the front, to create a front boundary and the driveway would run parallel with [address].

The Residential Design Guide SPD requires that extensions must acknowledge the character of the house and wider area. Whilst the proposal does not include an extension to the property, it does however, include works to the domestic frontage, therefore has some relevance here.

Given the height of the existing boundary wall due to the changes in elevation behind it, it is a prominent feature along [address] especially at the point of the appeal site, where it sweeps downhill around the bend in the road.

The traditional construction and materials make the existing wall an attractive feature which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. I consider that the proposed dwarf wall, notwithstanding the appropriate materials proposed, would be at odds with the character of the existing wall either side of the appeal site, due to its low height. Due to this together with the loss of the prominent and attractive boundary wall, the proposal would not complement or enhance the character and appearance of the area.

Although the proposed level changes and soft landscaping would result in the appeal site appearing significantly different from its current condition, the host dwelling would remain at a higher level behind the works, and the new landscaping would mature over time. As a result, these elements would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the area.

My attention has been drawn to a property along [address] which has had the wall removed. The remaining wall to the front of this property appeared to be a low brick wall in a different context, therefore I do not consider this to be directly comparable to the case before me.

In conclusion, for the reasons set out, and despite my findings in relation to the proposed materials, level changes and soft landscaping, the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, and would be contrary to Policies C1 and H10 of the Tameside Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which between them seek to ensure that townscape and landscape character of the Borough is understood and the nature of the surrounding fabric is to be respected in considering proposals for built development, and that design complements or enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site does not benefit from off-street car parking provision and the proposed development would provide a driveway with off-street parking for the dwelling.

The proposal would see two accesses to allow occupants to drive onto and off the site in a forward gear if driving in through one access and out of the other. However, due to the arrangement of the driveway, both accesses could be used for access and egress.

Due to the position of the property on [address], which is on a bend, together with the mature trees on the pavement and the bus stop, I do not consider that visibility would be sufficient, particularly when looking uphill when exiting from either access.

In addition, the manoeuvring of a car to turn into the access nearest the bend would require the vehicle to slow significantly or stop to turn into the site. There would likely be poor visibility for other road users particularly when travelling from the uphill direction until they are close to the access, and they may have to stop at very short notice.

Notwithstanding the views of the Highway Authority who did not object to the scheme, I consider that due to the positions of the accesses in relation to the bend in the road, highway trees, the bus stop and changes in topography, the proposal would result in poor visibility for those exiting the site, pedestrians and other road users. Which would be a safety concern.

My attention has been drawn to examples of other driveways in the area, a number of which are opposite junctions. I have no details of the age of the driveways, their planning history or whether they are original or if they have been altered over time to create access. Therefore, based on the information provided I cannot be certain that they are directly comparable with the circumstances of the site before me.

For the reasons set out, I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy T1 of the UDP which seeks to ensure that development schemes improve safety for all road users.

Policy T10 of the UDP sets out how the Council will approach parking provision and standards for car parks, which does not directly link to the harm identified in this issue, and therefore I find no specific conflict with Policy T10 when reaching my conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant has stated that they entered into pre-application discussions with the Highways Authority who did not object to the proposal. However, I have made my assessment based on the planning merits of the proposal before me, therefore the pre-application discussions that took place are not a significant material consideration for this appeal in my judgement.

The appellant has expressed general dissatisfaction with the consistency of decision making from the Council. This is not a matter for me to consider as part of this appeal. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the planning merits of the development only.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.