Appeal 6002711

The appeal is dismissed.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have taken the site description from the decision notice and appellant’s appeal form, as this more accurately describes the appeal site.

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

The appeal site relates to land on the corner of [address] and [address]. The site is a prominent, undeveloped parcel of land in the street scene which acts as a visual break between neighbouring built form and complements the established vegetation on the opposite side of [address]. Despite being enclosed by low level fencing, the greenery and openness of this land make an important and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is part of the [address] corridor and Policy CH4 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (the Local Plan) states the stretch of road between [address] and [name] is targeted for improvement of its quality and attractiveness, particularly in terms of streetscape. Policy ORC3 of the Local Plan also states that there is a presumption against the loss of amenity spaces unless that space no longer provides an amenity and/or a visual break within the local area.

The plans indicate the front portion of the appeal site could be furnished with public benches, an ornamental feature and tree planting which would retain some openness in the street scene. The clad shipping container would be located towards the western side of the front half of the appeal site, set back from the highway. Despite this positioning, the building would still stand out as an obvious built intrusion into this currently open space and would be prominent in views when travelling along both adjacent highways.

Even though the building would be single storey and materials could be controlled by condition, the introduction of built form on this site would erode its open and green characteristics, reduce its visual amenity qualities and undermine the visual break it provides between buildings either side of the site. Irrespective of the proportion of the land that would be covered by the kiosk, the introduction of built development on this relatively modest parcel of land would significantly reduce the positive contribution it makes to the street scene, harming the character and appearance of the area.

While variety can be seen in surrounding roof designs and the building would be comparatively smaller than nearby built form and previous proposals on the site, the contrasting flat roof and utilitarian form of the building would only increase its prominence in the street scene, resulting in an incongruous form of development which would erode the positive open characteristics of the site.

Permission has been granted on the site which includes the installation of four parking spaces and public benches1 on the land. However, even though this would reduce its green appearance, apart for the EV charging infrastructure which would be relatively modest, no buildings were approved as part of this development. Therefore, the visual break between development would be maintained and any impact on the openness of the land when in use by parked vehicles would be more transient than the appeal scheme before me. This permission therefore does not alter my conclusions above.

The appellant contends that this appeal scheme would enhance the character and appearance of the area. However, for the reasons given above, I do not agree. Moreover, even if the additional planting and street furniture could be said to enhance the site, any such benefit would be tempered by the harm that would arise from the loss of the openness of the site overall. I am also not persuaded that there would not be a less harmful way of utilising the land and securing the same benefits.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policies CH4, DSC1 and ORC3 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek to secure a high standard of design which enhances local character and distinctiveness, improves the quality and attractiveness of the [address] corridor and protects against the loss of amenity spaces.

The appeal site is located on the junction of [address] and [address] which are both subject to 30mph speed limits and restrictions which limit on-street parking, loading and waiting. Some unrestricted parking spaces exist on the opposite side of [address] and adjacent to the appeal site on [address], some of which were unoccupied at the time of my site visit. While my visit can only represent a brief snapshot in time, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that what I saw was atypical. 1 Council Ref. 07/24/0928/F

The kiosk would be positioned with pedestrian access off [address]. No on-site parking is proposed, and the appellant has clarified that a maximum of one staff member would be on-site at any one time. Despite this clarification, the Council maintains that there is insufficient information to consider the impact of the development on highway safety.

However, the comments of the HA confirm that due to the scale of the kiosk, it is unlikely to generate significant vehicle trips throughout the day. Furthermore, it concludes that the public highway is well protected from on-street parking in the immediate vicinity and some opportunities exist for drivers to park in unrestricted bays nearby. On this basis and subject to conditions, the HA raises no objection to the development on highway safety grounds. The Council has not provided any substantive explanation as to why it disagrees with the HA. Based on the limited evidence before me, I see no reason to come to an alternative conclusion than the one drawn by these technical experts in this case.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude the development would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. Accordingly, it would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, insofar as it states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appellant refers to a recent approval at [address], Waltham Cross2. However, I have not been provided with any details of this case. I am therefore unable to draw any direct comparisons to the appeal scheme, which I have assessed on its own merits in any event.

To the north of the appeal site is [address] which is a [name] listed building. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting. No 75 is a two-storey, attractive, white rendered cottage. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, its significance derives from its architectural character and historic interest. While the appeal site is proximate to this building, it is separated by [address] and some established trees. Neither party considers the development would be harmful to the setting of No 75 and based on the evidence before me, including the degree of visual separation, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

The appeal scheme would utilise a currently vacant piece of land, create additional employment opportunities in a sustainable location and improve public access to the land. However, given the scale of the development any associated social, economic or environmental benefits would be relatively limited and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 2 Council Ref. 07/24/0873/F