Appeal 6003040

The appeal is dismissed.

The information submitted with the appeal indicates that the development had been completed prior to the point at which the application was made. Therefore, the plans submitted with the application are intended to be a representation of what is already there. During my site visit, I noted that the development had indeed taken place, thus making the appeal development retrospective in nature. Nonetheless, the duty upon me is to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans and information that were before the Council at the time of its decision, and I have proceeded on this basis. I have removed reference in the description to “retrospective” as this does not relate to the act of development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site occupies a corner position at the junction of Broadway and [name]. It comprises a petrol filling station forecourt and associated shop, tyre and servicing business, and parcel collection facilities. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses.

Within the site, adjacent to the Broadway frontage, is an area of land laid to grass. It provides a modest but valuable element of soft landscaping within the locality, which is characterised predominantly by built form and, within the site, an extensive area of hard surfacing. It also assists in providing a sense of openness along the site’s frontage.

Located on the grassed area forward of the petrol filling station and close to the junction with Broadway and [name], the launderette occupies a prominent and highly visible position in the area. Its functional form and finishes, together with its siting, make the development appear visually discordant and overly prominent in the streetscene, harming the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has detailed the historical presence of street furniture, signage and various paraphernalia on the site, including that currently on the site. Many of the advertisements are moveable, are of a smaller scale and exhibit a more lightweight appearance than the launderette facility. For these reasons, their visual impact is not directly comparable to that of the development. However, the siting of the development in this location serves to increase the visual clutter within the site’s frontage.

While comparisons have been drawn by the appellant between the appeal development and the corner site opposite the appeal site, the circumstances differ materially. The existing palisade fencing is visually permeable, and the associated buildings are set back from the street edge, resulting in a less prominent and intrusive presence within the streetscene.

For the reasons given, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies PMD2, CSTP22 and CSTP23 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development which seek, among other things, a high standard of design and proposals that contribute positively to the character of the area. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure developments are sympathetic to local character.

The proposal would result in economic benefits through the diversification of the existing business and social benefits in the provision of a service facility for local people. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have identified in respect of the main issue.

The Council has referred to the impact of the presence of parked cars on the grassed area, potentially as a consequence of the development. However, any such parking would be temporary in nature, therefore the presence of vehicles would not constitute a permanent feature on the site. As such, parked cars would not give rise to any long-term adverse visual impact.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.