Appeal 6002487

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to front boundary wall / hedgerow, erection of railings and gates, creation of off-street parking space with new dropped kerb to enable the parking of an electric car at [site address] , Kensington and Chelsea, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/05191, 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 and Site Plan’ AL(90)01 [name]; ‘[address] Plan’ AL(90)10 [name]; ‘Proposed Plan’ AL(00)10 [name]; ‘[name] and Section’ AL(00)11 [name]; ‘[name](00) 12.

Notwithstanding condition 2, no development shall commence until a Flood Risk Assessment and a [name] (SuDS) Strategy, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The SuDS Strategy shall include details of permeable paving and sub-surfacing, means of attenuation including volume, means of surface water run-off being conveyed to the SuDS, and any sewer system connection. The development shall be carried out, retained and maintained, in accordance with the approved details.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures and recommendations contained within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report (Ref: C2J/80OXG/AIA/01a), including tree protection during construction, and construction details.

Notwithstanding condition 2, prior to the off-street parking space being first brought into use, details of a replacement wrought iron pedestrian gate, shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved pedestrian gate shall be installed, prior to first use of the off-street parking space, and retained thereafter.

The gates hereby approved shall be black painted and so maintained.

The vehicular gates shall be electronically operated such that they can be opened remotely and shall be retained as such.

The main issue is the effect of the development on parking provision.

The appeal site is within a residential street, comprising large, detached dwellings with front gardens. The street is primarily on-street parking, which is demarcated by runs of parking areas, interspersed with pavement crossovers into around eight off-street spaces. Planning permission was granted for an additional off-street space at 70 Oxford Gardens1. The area is within a [name] (CPZ).

Policies TR4 and TR8 of the Local Plan2 require improvements to the visual, functional and inclusive quality of streets, and require all work to be carried out in accordance with the Council’s Streetscape Guide. They also require the demonstration that following mitigation, development will not adversely increase traffic congestion or on-street parking pressure, amongst other things.

Policy TR4 also seeks to resist pavement crossovers and forecourt parking. The Transport and Streets SPD3 provides additional guidance in this regard. It states that accesses should not compromise the visual or functional quality of the streetscape, highway safety, traffic flow or on-street parking availability. It also states that crossovers and forecourt parking will not gain consent where they result in the loss of on-street parking without a net gain of at least two parking spaces overall.

The proposal relates to a continuous stretch of on-street parking, extending from the start of the demarked zone near the road junction with [address], to the western edge of a disabled bay. [address] Plan4, indicates that it is approximately 94.1 metres long. Even though the Council’s stance is that the area is circa. 95 metres long, this is not supported with evidence. There are no individually marked bays, however based on six metre long spaces to enable parallel parking, or one space being open-ended and therefore 4.8 metres long, the existing parking area can accommodate 15 cars. There is nothing before me to dispute this number. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this is a realistic calculation of the existing spaces.

[address] Plan indicates that the proposed crossover would provide a break in the stretch of on-road parking and would leave the two bays on either side of the break, open-ended. As such, it would be easier to manoeuvre into them, and they could then be 4.8 metres long, rather than the 6 metre length required to parallel park. Taking account of this, and that the space at the western end of the on-street parking area is also open-ended, the total number of cars able to park, 1 PP/21/05662. 2 New Local Plan Review, July 2024, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. 3 Transport and Streets Supplementary Planning Document, April 2016. 4 Dwg no AL(90)10C. would still amount to 15. There is nothing before me to dispute the appellant’s calculations, and I am therefore satisfied that there would be no loss of on-street parking within the stretch of on-road parking.

I recognise that an incremental loss of available on-street parking could have a wider impact on the borough as a whole. Indeed, Paragraph 10.45 of the supporting text to Policy TR8 states that the whole borough is subject to one CPZ and therefore demand for parking from new development will not necessarily be focused in the area surrounding it. In the context of a lack of individual demarcated bays, the proposal would mean that there would be 4.3 metres less space overall, within the borough, for on-street parking. I note the Council’s similar stance in respect of the [address] appeal decision, whereby they consider the loss of any length of parking to be material.

However in this specific case, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have found that there would be no change to the number of cars being able to park. There is also nothing before me to indicate that the loss of 4.3 metres would compromise the overall functional quality of on-street parking availability within the CPZ. Accordingly, a net gain of at least two parking spaces overall, would not be required.

There is a high demand for on-street parking in the area, as evidenced by the introduction of the CPZ and the Council survey data indicating a weekday overnight permit parking demand of between 70% and 80%. The appellant refers to a 90% threshold for parking stress, citing the appeal decision at [address]. However, I have not been provided with details of the evidence before the Inspector in that case, which limits the weight I can attach to that figure. I also note that the decision was issued some years ago, and relevant benchmarks or guidance may since have evolved. In any event, site-specific parking surveys provide a more reliable indication of current parking demand than proxy measures such as permit revenue.

Nevertheless, in the absence of robust evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the proposal would not result in the loss of available on-street parking and would not compromise the safe and efficient operation of the CPZ. As such, the proposal complies with Policies TR4 and TR8 of the Local Plan.

Policy TR6(F) of the Local Plan seeks to safeguard public access by ensuring development does not reduce access to, or attractiveness of, existing footways used by the public. The SPD guidance states that, crossovers and forecourt parking will not gain consent where (on narrow pavements), they would create an uneven surface for pedestrians to negotiate, amongst other requirements.

The crossover would result in the pavement surface sloping downwards from the site boundary to road level. However, the pavement is not narrow, and so the slope would not be severe. There is also no other dished paving in close proximity, which would otherwise have resulted in an undulating surface. For these reasons, the access to, attractiveness, and functional quality of the public footway would not be unduly compromised, in accordance with Policy TR6 of the Local Plan, and the SPD.

The site is within [address] Conservation Area (the CA). [address] is significant for the character and architectural quality of the residential houses, which are [name] development, of the Victorian era. A strong contributing factor to their significance is the building lines set behind front gardens, with low, frontage, boundary walls and hedges. However there is also variety in boundary treatments within the street scene, including wrought iron gates.

The proposal would result in the loss of a short section of wall and hedge; however it would be replaced with black painted, wrought iron, bi-fold vehicle gates, which would accord with the Council’s streetscape requirements. The existing pedestrian gate is timber and is shown to be retained as such on the proposed plans. The replacement of this gate with a black painted wrought-iron equivalent, as agreed by the appellant, would adhere to Policy TR4(A) of the Local Plan, which requires an improvement to the quality of streets. Taken as a whole, including some loss of boundary features, and their replacement with suitable equivalents, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not harm its significance.

Three trees are growing in close proximity to the proposal and are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. A shallow crossover design, and geo-web sub-base for the driveway, topped with a permeable paving section, as shown on drawing AL(00)12, would ensure there would be no damage to tree roots. I note the Council’s similar stance in this regard.

The site is within the North Kensington Critical Drainage Area. The parties agree that a site specific flood risk assessment and sustainable drainage scheme should be secured by way of a condition of planning permission. Taking account of the small scale of development, and permeable surfacing, I have no reason to disagree.

The Council has suggested a list of planning conditions, and the appellant has similarly commented. I have considered the conditions against advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary I have altered wording to ensure enforceability, necessity and conciseness, and to ensure conditions are not unduly onerous in the context of the scale of development.

It is necessary to confirm the standard time limit for the development, and to specify the approved plans and drawings, for the avoidance of doubt.

A site specific flood risk assessment and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) scheme are required to ensure that the potential for surface water flooding is mitigated. It is required pre-commencement, as it is essential for the scheme to be incorporated into all aspects of the construction, including below ground elements.

A condition is imposed requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, including tree protection during construction. This is in order to safeguard the long term health of the trees.

Details are required of the proposed pedestrian gates, and the painting black, of both sets of gates, to ensure harmonious treatment. A condition requiring the vehicular gates to be electronically operated is required to reduce instances of cars waiting in the road, in the interests of highway safety, and to accord with the Council’s requirements.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.