Appeal 6002486

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a vehicular access at [site address] , Grove Park, Lewisham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/141476, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location Plan, Proposed Block Plan and Proposed Site Plan ref. 2540 02.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey end of terrace dwelling located within a predominately residential area where properties are typically set behind front gardens of varying depths and surfaces and are enclosed by a mix of boundary treatments. The front garden at the appeal site is mostly soft landscaped with low level planting and a broadly central path which is similar to other front gardens that I observed in the surrounding area. Where present, this soft landscaping makes a positive contribution to the street scene. However, I also saw examples of front gardens that had been hard surfaced to varying degrees to provide off-street parking areas served by dropped kerbs in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. Collectively, this resulted in a varied character and appearance to the area.

The plans show the entire front garden would be paved to provide off-street parking, accessed via a new dropped kerb. The existing soft landscaping to the front of the appeal property would be removed, which would result in the loss of positive visual features in the street scene. However, this would not be dissimilar to many other front gardens I observed along [address] where varying levels of soft landscaping can be seen, including on the opposite side of the street at No 53, where no soft landscaping is present within the front garden area. Furthermore, absent of any specific protection, I cannot be certain that the soft landscaping at the appeal site would remain in the event this appeal was not successful. Therefore, while regrettable, the hard surfacing of the front garden would not result in visual harm or be out of character with the surrounding area.

Figure 6.9 of the Lewisham Local Plan Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that where the principle of car parking within front gardens is agreed, 50% of the garden should be retained as soft landscaping. However, the SPD has the status of guidance and not policy. Moreover, paragraph 6.7.3 explains that the Council will generally resist turning front gardens into areas of hardstanding and/or car parking, unless it can be demonstrated, amongst other things, that no harm will result to amenity and local character. [name] have found this to be the case in this instance, the scheme would accord with the overarching aims and objectives of this part of the SPD.

I acknowledge the Appellant states their intention is to incorporate planting along the side boundary and that the hard surfacing could be installed to direct run off into retained soil areas which could be controlled by conditions and would address the Council’s concerns. However, no soft landscaping areas are shown on the proposed plans and given I have found the lack of soft landscaping would not result in harm, such a condition would not be necessary.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) insofar as it supports high quality development that respects the setting of a site and maintains an areas character. It would also comply with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which support developments that are sympathetic to local character.

I note the Council raises concerns in relation to surface water drainage. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the area is prone to surface water flooding which would be exacerbated by this appeal. I also note the plans show the use of a soakaway and surface water drainage in any event.

I have considered the planning conditions suggested by the Council against the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed conditions specifying the period for commencement and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interest of planning certainty. However, I have not imposed the suggested landscaping condition for the reasons previously explained.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development accords with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR