Appeal 6003162

The appeal is dismissed.

As no house number was used for the address of the appeal site on the planning application form, for clarity, I have included the house number to which the proposal relates and is used in other documents submitted by both main parties.

For the purposes of my assessments, I have used the description of development 1 set out on the Council’s Decision Notice as opposed to that given on the application form. This is in the interests of clarity and conciseness. I am satisfied that no party with a potential interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced by me taking this approach.

It is apparent that a Local Plan Part 1 Review is in the process of emerging. However, as this has yet to go through the examination process, its emerging policies are at a stage that currently attract limited weight. I shall determine the appeal on this basis. 1 The formation of a vehicular access to serve [site address] , Repton, Derby [postcode]

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

The appeal property relates to a semi-detached dwelling with a car parking area that occupies the space between the front elevation and the pavement. Much of this parking area is separated from the highway by a wide grassed verge and the pavement, and the property shares a vehicular access with the adjacent dwelling, No 44. [address] provides a transition from the built‐up area of Repton to the open countryside to the east. It is defined by its broad grassed verges which are strong positive features that make an important contribution to the open, verdant character of the street.

The proposal would extend the existing access across the full width of the property’s frontage. Combined with the existing access serving Nos 42 and 44, this would create a large expanse of hardstanding within the public realm. Whilst a section of verge would remain to the front of No 40, this would be significantly reduced and would be smaller than the resulting area of hardstanding. Consequently, the proposal would result in the hard surfacing becoming the dominant visual element due to its overall scale and width and would significantly erode the established character of the area.

Whilst vehicles have evidently driven over parts of the verge along [address], including at the appeal site, the grassed area remains visible and contributes positively to the street scene. I acknowledge that some verge loss has already occurred along [address]. However, I have limited details in respect of this including any associated planning history. An example provided in the appellant’s statement, showing a full width access, is located on a part of the street where no verge separates the pavement from the highway on the corresponding side, and therefore does not reflect the immediate context of the appeal site.

Two further examples from [address] show wide shared accesses, where the depth of the verge is larger than that at the appeal site. However, these do not extend across the whole frontage of the associated individual properties and are positioned alongside comparatively large verges on either side. Therefore, they are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal.

Reference has also been made to the presence of full width accesses and verge loss on a nearby residential street, [address]. However, whilst this road is close to the appeal property, it does not form a main route into Repton but instead links to other roads within the village. Furthermore, whilst its junction with [address] has a greener, more open character defined by hedges, trees and verges, further along [address] it is characterised by narrower footways and verges and a denser built form. It therefore provides a different context to [address] and the appeal site, which retains a more open and verdant character and a stronger visual connection to the surrounding countryside. These examples are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal or its context and do not justify the harm identified.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) seeks to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area, are sympathetic to local character and establish or maintain a strong sense of place. It also emphasises that development that is not well designed should be refused. For the reasons set out above, the harm identified would therefore result in a conflict with the Framework.

I conclude that the proposed development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conflict therefore arises with Policy BNE1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development is well designed and responds to its context and streets are visually attractive.

The Council has not raised concerns in respect of the living conditions of neighbouring properties, and there is no evidence before me that would lead me to a different view. The appellant has also raised some concerns regarding how the application was considered by the Council. However, these matters are neutral in my consideration of the appeal and do not alter my conclusion in respect of the

The appeal property shares its access with No 44 and is served by a smaller proportion of its overall width, which is likely to make manoeuvring more difficult and increase the potential for obstruction by other vehicles. Although reference has been made to collisions along [address], which is a classified route, I have been provided with limited information and therefore cannot draw any meaningful comparison between those incidents and the circumstances at the appeal property. Whilst the proposal is likely to improve access to the existing parking area for the occupants of No 42, and could potentially reduce damage to the kerb, I am not satisfied that the level of improvement in these senses would be significant. Further, it has not been robustly demonstrated that the specific scheme in question represents the only means of improving vehicular access at the site. Therefore, the harm identified above is not outweighed by potential benefits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.