Appeal 6002675

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension of dropped kerb and parking area to provide additional parking space, and re-surfacing of existing parking space with surface dressed concrete with aggregate to finish at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01496/FUL, 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 no. SE3520A Existing and Proposed Plan.

Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted the parking area shown on the approved plan shall be constructed and permanently surface in a hard-bound material and shall thereafter be retained as such.

The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the public highway, which shall be installed prior to first use and thereafter retained.

The appellant submitted a plan clarifying the extent of proposed hard surfacing as part of the appeal. Following review of this, and the approved plans for the existing driveway, the Council has confirmed that it no longer wishes to defend the second reason for refusal. I have no reason to disagree with that finding.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stewartby Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is an end-of-terrace dwelling located within an area which is residential in character. In common with the established pattern of development in the surrounding area, the property is set back from [address], with a grass verge, footpath and lawned front garden separating the property from the highway. An existing parking space serving the appeal property is located within the grass verge. I observed on my site visit a number of similar parking arrangements along [address], including several examples of wider parking areas and parking extending closer to properties. The driveways differ in their appearance, with not all examples appearing sympathetic to the surrounding area. I also recognise that some of these driveways were implemented prior to the adoption of the Council’s Stewartby Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (SCACAMP) and that some are subject to ongoing enforcement investigation.

As the property is located within the [name], I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The SCACAMP identifies that the special interest of the CA derives from its history as a planned model village. I observed on my site visit that the CA has an open, spacious character as a result of buildings being set back from roads. Trees lining the streets and large open spaces create a verdant character. Built form is generally uniform in scale and appearance.

The appeal property contributes positively towards the character and appearance of the CA, and its significance as a designated heritage asset, by reason of its siting, consistent with the established pattern of development, and appearance, analogous with the surrounding built form. The SCACAMP identifies the property as a building of positive merit.

The verge to the front of the property forms part of the periphery of the Significant Green Space identified in the SCACAMP. I observed on site that, although the wider green space contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA, the section of verge immediately adjacent to [address] to the front of the appeal property already includes parking spaces, including serving the appeal property. Consequently, even when the parking serving [address] which is currently subject to an enforcement investigation is discounted from consideration, the verge does not share the verdant appearance of much of the surrounding open space. In this regard, although it contributes positively to the character and appearance, and therefore significance, of the CA by reason of its openness, this contribution is limited.

The appeal proposal would result in a driveway which would be broadly comparable in size to driveways in the immediate vicinity, which I observed do not detract from the character and appearance of the CA by reason of the use of sympathetic materials and lack of built form above ground level.

The reduction in the quantum of green space which would result from the proposal would be of a minor scale. I acknowledge that when assessed in conjunction with the existing driveway the reduction would be greater. However, given the location at the periphery of the Significant Green Space, which already does not share the verdant appearance of much of the surrounding area, and the green space which would remain adjacent to the proposed development and directly in front of the appeal property, the proposal would successfully integrate with the appearance of the area. In this regard, the development would not appear unduly prominent, notwithstanding its location on one of the main approaches to the village and taking into account the change in land levels. Moreover, from my observations on site, the proposed materials would not be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the CA.

The SCACAMP outlines at paragraph 9.13 that the Council will seek the preservation of open frontages as part of the maintenance of the open character of the CA. Given that the proposed development would not result in any built form above ground level, I am satisfied that it would not impinge upon the open character of the CA.

Drawing together the above points, the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the CA. In this regard, it would not cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Since there would be no harm to this heritage asset, there is no need to balance the public benefits of the scheme.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework and would not conflict with Policies 29 and 41S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (adopted 2020). These policies seek, among other things, development which protects and, where appropriate, enhances heritages assets and successfully integrates with the historic environment and character.

Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick Parish Council raises concerns about close proximity to the railway bridge and causing danger to other road users. However, the Council’s Highways Officer concluded in respect of an earlier proposal for parking on the appeal site that the development would benefit from appropriate visibility, with unobstructed views to an appropriate distance on either side. The Council also highlight that [name] have been consulted on the application and have advised that they have no objection to the application, but the appellant would be required to liaise with [name] prior to any work taking place on site to ensure that the development can be undertaken safely and without impact to operational railway safety. From the plan before me and my observations on site, there is no credible evidence before me that would lead me to an alternative conclusion to the Council on the other matters raised, or that could justify the dismissal of the appeal on these grounds.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests set out in the Framework. This requires conditions to be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of conditions for clarity, and to ensure compliance with the tests of both precision and enforceability.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the approved plan. These conditions are imposed for certainty.

Conditions relating to surfacing of the parking area and management of surface water are necessary in the interests of highway safety.

I have not imposed the suggested condition relating to the gradient of the vehicle crossover as I do not consider it to be necessary in the context of the relatively flat topography of the site.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development complies with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.