Appeal 6003300

The appeal is dismissed.

As the permitted development rights have been removed from the local area, there is no opportunity to change the use from a C3 use class (dwelling house) to C4 use class (house in multiple occupation HMO) without the requirement for the appellant to apply for planning permission. There would be an expectation that the dwelling would become occupied by up to four unrelated persons. The appellant has an interest in student lettings.

The main issue of the proposal is the effect on parking and pedestrian and highway safety.

The dwelling is located within the residential estate of [site address] outside the historic city centre core of Durham. The housing estate appears as a planned and purpose-built modern housing development. The dwelling represents a typical three up two down home. It would be extended at ground floor level to provide a combined living/dining space with the front lounge reconfigured into a bedroom therefore the dwelling would amount to four bedrooms as a C4 HMO.

The Council’s Parking and [name], 2023, requires three-bedroom dwellings to accommodate two off-street parking spaces. I have read the Council’s Committee Report and the comments the officer makes regarding parking at the site. Despite their comments, from my observations the access was wide enough to allow access into the front garden and there was space to park a vehicle here. Therefore, I am of the view that there is incurtilage parking already available on site.

In accordance with the SPD, a four-bedroom dwelling would generate demand for additional parking at a minimum of three parking spaces. The addition of one more bedroom could inevitably increase parking demand within the local area. The appellant has therefore made provision to demolish the front boundary wall in order to widen the access to allow parking for up to three vehicles within the front garden space. This is indicated on the proposed site plan.

I have concerns regarding the appellant’s solution to in-curtilage parking. The loss of a front boundary wall results in reduced on-street parking directly outside the site along the kerb side as this would block the access into the front garden space. This therefore reduces on-street parking provision in this location. At the time of my visit there was a significant amount of parking around the green area indicating parking pressures and a recent appeal decision brought to my attention1 by the appellant for a similar development close to the appeal site, also acknowledges this issue. The Inspector accepts that the site is close to local facilities and public transport options and employment providers, and the reliance on the private car may be less as a consequence. However, as all the front garden would be entirely available to park, encourages the use of the private vehicle.

Furthermore, in this residential area where I observed much pedestrian activity along the footway, the effect of no boundary wall here would compromise the passing pedestrian as they are exposed to the vulnerability of three vehicles crossing the footway to access or egress from the site.

Three in-curtilage parking spaces do not meet the required minimum 5.5m depth and therefore as the appellant has volunteered to provide three parking spaces, vehicles overhanging the footway would reduce the pavement width and further lead to pedestrian safety issues, made more acute given this is a dense residential area where residents would pass the site on foot to the services along [address].

The dwelling may be occupied by students according to the appellant, although this cannot be controlled through the planning system, and furthermore there is no mechanism to control the size of cars that can park at the site even if the appellant is of the view they could be small city cars. Nor is there any evidence before me to guarantee that two cars would be more likely to be parked within the front garden than three.

The appellant has a fallback position whereby they can implement a certificate of lawfulness2 for extensions to the dwelling and the removal of the front boundary wall formed part of that approval. This is a material consideration to take into account. However, it was not apparent to me whether these works had been implemented, and I could see that the boundary wall was in situ. A certificate of lawfulness is one form of planning permission with its own specific requirements. The proposal before me requires planning permission where all material considerations are taken into account, including highway safety.

The appeal proposal has been compared to the recent appeal decision for a similar proposal. Comparing this scheme before me to the appeal scheme, that Inspector 1 Appeal reference APP//X1355/W/24/3351686 2 DM/25/02543/CPO certificate of lawfulness for the erection of single storey rear extension, replacement of door opening with window and demolition of boundary wall to widen access. deemed it to be acceptable despite it not being entirely policy compliant, based on its individual circumstances. The proposal before me would provide three parking spaces on site which varies from that appeal brought to my attention.

Refuse bins should be stored within the site and taken to the kerbside for collection on the necessary day of collection, together with cycle parking provision made available to the occupants. The front garden space would be reduced as a consequence. Even if this incurtilage space would be restricted, I do not consider any conflict would be so severe as to cause a highway or pedestrian safety issue.

To conclude on this main issue, despite my findings on the effects of refuse and cycle parking restrictions at the site, the proposal would lead to an unacceptable effect on highway and pedestrian safety and would not comply with County Durham Plan Policies 16, 21, 29 and 31 Council's Parking and the [name] which together, and amongst other things, seeks to safeguard highway and pedestrian safety.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.