Appeal 6003711

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to subdivide existing link-detached house (C3 class use Dwellinghouses) into 2no. housing units (C3 class use Dwellinghouses) and to create 1no. additional parking space at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6/2024/1114/FULL, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: P1001, 40, 50, 51, 60 and 61.

The appellant submitted a new drawing with their final comments showing the layout of two car parking spaces and bin storage on the appeal site frontage to [address]. This is late evidence that has not been seen by any other party and the appeal process provides no opportunity for the Council or interested parties to comment on such late evidence. In having regard to established case law1 and to avoid procedural unfairness, I have determined the appeal based on the original drawings that were before the Council when it made its decision, and not on the late evidence.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) highway safety and (ii) the character and appearance of the area, including with particular regard to car parking provision and the storage of bins. 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

The appeal relates to a link detached 4-bedroom dwelling. It fronts onto a section of [address] that is a short cul-de-sac and is set amongst a row of dwellings of substantially the same size and appearance. Those dwellings are set back from the road behind hard surfaced forecourts that accommodate car parking spaces and bin storage. The proposal is to subdivide the appeal dwelling into 2 dwellings, comprising of a 1-bedroom ground floor unit and a 3-bedroom house.

The planning application was refused for reasons including a failure to demonstrate the provision of 2 adequately sized car parking spaces within the application site boundary. The Local Highways Authority (LHA) considered that it had not been demonstrated that parking spaces of the requisite sizes (5 metres x 2.7 metres) could be accommodated on the appeal site frontage without encroaching onto the footway.

I saw at my visit that the footway identified by the Council and LHA corresponds to a strip of land running along the length of the cul-de-sac between the road and the hard surfaced frontages to the dwellings. It does not have the appearance of a conventional highway footway as it is devoid of raised kerbs and its surface is level, or flush, with the road and the hard surfaced frontages to the dwellings, which tend to be block-paved or concrete.

The appearance of the footway is just about distinguishable from that of the cul-de-sac’s road by the comparatively rougher and uneven condition of its surface, which shows visible signs of repairs and some broken surfacing. Seen by the casual observer, the asphalt/tarmac surfaces of the footway and road are so similar that they have the character and appearance of a space that is shared between cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, pedestrians are more likely to walk along the road as opposed to the land identified as footway.

A large family sized SUV type car was parked on the frontage of the appeal site at the time of my visit. It was encroaching onto the footway but not the road. Using that car as a reference point and a proxy for the typical size of a large car, I am satisfied that the appeal site frontage has sufficient space to accommodate at least 2 parked cars of comparable sizes together with the wheeled bins that are likely to be needed to serve the proposed dwellings.

Larger cars parked on the appeal site frontage would encroach onto the land identified as footway and obstruct the passage of any pedestrians using it. However, because other footways along the part of [address] to the west provide a more convenient walking route through the area, very few pedestrians are likely to walk along the cul-de-sac’s footway and across the front of the appeal site.

Pedestrians walking along the cul-de-sac would most likely be occupants of the properties fronting onto it or their visitors. As the cul-de-sac is short and serves only a small number of dwellings, it is reasonable to suppose that vehicle movements along it would be relatively infrequent and travelling at very low speeds. Therefore, pedestrians are most likely to walk within the road as opposed to the footway, which given traffic conditions along the cul-de-sac would not be unsafe. This appears to be what currently occurs as at the time of my visit the footway was obstructed by several wheeled bins along its length and a parked car.

Consequently, for the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the risk of collisions between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles using the cul-de-sac, and arising from cars associated with the appeal development that are parked to encroach onto the footway, would be very low and hardly any different to the existing situation at the appeal property. As such it would not amount to any real or unacceptable harm to the safety of those road users. Due to those factors requiring visibility splays to be provided free of obstructions has not been shown to be necessary. In my experience permitted development rights would not allow the erection of a fence, wall or other means of enclosure above a height of 1 metre and adjacent to a highway.

The number of parking spaces at the appeal site would cumulatively fall short of the number of spaces identified as being required by the Council’s parking standards. Therefore, it is likely that vehicles would be expected to be displaced onto the public highway and parked there. However, a shortfall of parking spaces against the standards will not necessarily result in harm to highway safety.

Most residential properties in the area appear to have off-street parking and at the time of my visit several on-street parking spaces were available along nearby roads. Parking around junctions is controlled by double yellow lines. Whilst nearly all residential streets in the area are within a [name] (CPZ), there is nothing of substance to show that the roads in the area suffer from high levels of parking stress. It is reasonable to suppose that the CPZ is in force to restrict cars being parked by visitors to the nearby University as opposed to controlling parking stress arising from residents parked cars. No substantive evidence has been advanced to the contrary.

I acknowledge that my visit is only a snapshot in time. However, even if occupation of the appeal development was to displace a number of additional cars onto the public highway for parking, at a level equivalent to the shortfall against the parking standards, there is nothing of substance to indicate that those vehicles would be harmful to highway safety, the free flow of traffic or to the living conditions of the occupants of existing properties in the area. There is no compelling evidential basis to show that they could not be safely accommodated on the public highway. In this instance, the sustainable location of the appeal site with access to public transport may reduce reliance upon car ownership for travel.

There would be a technical conflict between the appeal proposal and both the Council’s parking standards and the LHA’s Policy on [name], insofar as it states that vehicles must be prevented from overhanging a pavement. However, for the reasons I have given above, my overall conclusion on this main issue is that the appeal proposal would not be harmful to the safety of pedestrians and other road users, with particular regard to car parking provision and the storage of bins.

The appeal proposal is therefore consistent with Policies SADM2 and SADM12 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan 2016 – 2036, [name] 2023 (“the WHBCLP”) insofar as they state that development proposals will be permitted provided there would be no negative impacts on highway safety having regard to parking standards and taking account of the site’s location, accessibility to services, and likely parking demand.

For the same reasons the proposed development would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as applications for development should create places that are safe, which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, and should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The character of the area is residential and the appearance of this part of [address] is defined by a consistent row of substantially similar dwellings that are set back from the short cul-de-sac behind hard surfaced frontages that accommodate parked vehicles and outdoor storage of wheeled bins. As it currently stands, the appeal property is consistent with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Seen in that context, the proposal would not alter the appearance of the existing building. The proposed dwellings would share the existing front entrance door. The visual effects of parked vehicles and a larger number of bins being stored on the frontage of the appeal site would be in-keeping with the character and appearance of the area. To the casual observer, the appeal property would retain the appearance of a single dwellinghouse, and it would not be seen as a cramped overdevelopment of the appeal site. Storing wheeled bins within a refuse store as referred to in the extract from the National Design Guide would be unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would be in-keeping with the character and appearance of the area, consistent with WHBCLP Policy SADM12, insofar as it requires the siting, layout and design of vehicle parking, and the provision of refuse storage to maintain an attractive and coherent street scene and protect visual amenity.

Although not cited in the refusal reason the delegated report appears to imply that the proposal would conflict with [name] SP1 and SP9 insofar as they require development to reflect local character and relate well to the wider townscape. For the preceding reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed development would be consistent with those policies.

Those same reasons mean that the proposal would be consistent with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it requires planning decisions to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.

Whether the interested party is correct that the appeal development is retrospective in nature does not alter my conclusions on the main issues above or the outcome of the appeal. The concerns raised over the appearance and quality of the extension previously granted permission by the Council are not matters for my consideration through this appeal. The appeal proposal is not for an extension to the existing dwellinghouse.

The Council has suggested a number of planning conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. I have considered them in accordance with the tests for imposing conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of certainty of the planning permission granted, it is necessary to specify the approved plans, in addition to the standard time limit condition.

The delegated report states that the proposal does not include any additional extensions or alterations, and the application form states that it does not require any materials to be used externally. Consequently, a condition requiring extensions to be constructed from external materials matching the existing dwelling would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

Given my conclusions on the second main issue, it is unnecessary to require a scheme for hard and soft landscaping. As there does not appear to be any trees growing on the appeal site that could be affected by the proposal, it would be unnecessary and unreasonable to impose a condition requiring trees to be retained and protected.

The Council’s reasons for removing permitted development rights within Part 1, [name] and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, are broadly framed and do not amount to the clear justification needed for doing so.

There is nothing of substance before me to indicate that those permitted development rights would allow for extensions projecting beyond the principal elevations of the dwellings hereby permitted or the erection of outbuildings on land between them and the cul-de-sac, which could otherwise affect car parking provision, bin storage, or the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal is consistent with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.