Appeal 6002194

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and existing trees.

The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached dwelling that sits back from the road in a sloping plot behind a front garden, front boundary fence, pavement and a grass verge. The change in ground level is significant, with the appeal property sitting significantly lower than the level of the road. There is a stepped pedestrian route alongside the side boundary of the site which leads to a rear track which provides access to a parking space and garage to the rear of the site. The track is unmade and very unevenly surfaced currently.

All of the properties along this section of City Way, are subject to similar sloping plots. There did not appear to be any vehicular accesses from City Way serving dwellings between the junction with [address] and [address], with the grass verge appearing largely uninterrupted, other than where narrow pedestrian paths cross it. There are trees along the side boundary within the appeal site and a tree located within the grass verge in close proximity to the proposal. Opposite the site are the grounds of a school located behind a substantial belt of trees. The set back of built form from the road, the sloping front gardens, the presence of trees and the continuity of the grass verge all contribute positively to the spaciousness of the area and provide a distinct rhythm and character to the pattern of development along this part of City Way.

The proposed vehicle crossover would disrupt and harmfully erode the grass verge. Whilst there are examples of vehicle crossovers along other parts of City Way, there are none present in proximity of the site. The proposal would therefore introduce a feature which is not common along this part of City Way.

The proposed hardstanding would be built up significantly to create a platform in order to resolve the current sloping ground conditions and would cover a substantial part of the front garden. The provision of such an extensive area of hardstanding would appear overly bulky and engineered and would significantly reduce the soft landscaped area to the front of [site address] .

Taking the different elements of the scheme together, the proposal would appear a harsh, and vehicle dominated feature that would appear incongruous in the street scene. The front boundary treatment would be significantly reduced meaning that the proposed works would be clearly visible in views from the pavement and from City Way.

[name] did not witness any cars parked on the grass verge to the front of the site during my site visit, it is asserted that parking on the grass verge does take place at times due to parking stress in the area, in particular due to the new school development nearby. Whilst photographs are provided showing the parking of cars on pavements and verges, it is not clear where these are located. However, even if parking on verges does take place at times, this does not lead me to find that the proposal would result in a better solution, given it would lead to a permanent change to the street scene.

The appellant states that no trees would be removed as part of the scheme, however, the existing trees within the front garden area are not identified on the proposed drawings. The proposed driveway would be close to the street tree located in the adjacent grass verge. Without any detailed arboricultural information before me it is not possible to understand the effect of the proposed works on the trees. As such I am not satisfied that unacceptable damage to the trees would not result. As the trees currently contribute positively to the green and spacious characteristics of the area, the harm to or loss of these trees would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I do not find that this matter could be dealt with by planning condition, given the close relationship between the proposed works and the existing trees.

I therefore find that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. I am also not satisfied, based on the evidence before me, that the proposed works would not result in harm to the existing trees. The proposal would be contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan Adopted May 2003 (LP). These policies seek, amongst other things, that proposals respect the visual amenity of the surrounding area and that developments seek to retain trees that provide a valuable contribution to local character.

The Council raised no objection to the scheme on highway safety grounds or due to effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree. An interested party provided support for the proposal, however, for the reasons set out above I have come to a different conclusion on the matter of character and appearance.

I am referred to the recent development of a school in close proximity to the site. [name] note this is a large development with associated infrastructure, it is of a different character and type to the residential development along City Way. I therefore do not find it comparable to the proposal.

The appellant has identified that there are currently five adults living at [address]. I accept that the proposal would be more convenient for the existing occupants, however, this largely private benefit would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

It is stated that a family member will be moving into the property in the future, which would result in the need for an additional vehicle space. This is subject to a future application for an annexe development, although I have no specific details before me on that future scheme. I am told that the family member has limited mobility and uses a mobility scooter to get around.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires me to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not. Amongst other things, for the purposes of the Equality Act, protected characteristics include disability. [name] have not been provided with supporting medical information, the submitted evidence indicates that the provision of an off street parking area to the front of the site would be beneficial for family members who have a protected characteristic for the purposes of applying the PSED.

Whilst the appellant identifies that the proposal would include a gently sloping path from the parking area to the front of the appeal property, the proposed drawings show steps from the parking area down into the remainder of the front garden which suggests the proposal would not result in step free access. Nevertheless, I appreciate that being able to park on the frontage of the site would be more convenient than having to travel to a vehicle parked along City Way or to the rear of the property where there is an uneven track which requires occupants to walk up the steps adjacent to the property to access the site.

I am sympathetic to these circumstances, and while it would be advantageous to provide more convenient access, I can only attach moderate weight in favour of a development which would improve the quality of life for its occupants. I consider that this benefit does not outweigh the harm that the development would cause in relation to the main issue. Therefore, I find that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

[name] note that improvements to accessibility would meet the aims and objectives of other LP policies, I have found that the proposal would be contrary to Policies BNE1 and BNE43 of the LP. I therefore find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.