Appeal 6004131

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of varying conditions 2 and 5 of planning application 2024/1057/FUL on highway and pedestrian safety.

The development proposed is to vary conditions 2 and 5 of planning application Ref 2024/1057/FUL by moving the third parking space to the left of the house. This would require removing an area of garden and a tree to allow for an additional car parking space. A picket fence would be erected along the front boundary.

The proposed parking space would be at right angles to [address], tightly adjacent to a picket fence. The proposed picket fence and lack of dropped kerb directly outside the frontage would not allow direct vehicular access to the front of the property. In order for a vehicle to park in this space, there would need to be considerable manoeuvring over the shared driveway, particularly if there was a vehicle parked in the adjacent space. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the proposal would provide an adequate and safe parking layout or that the proposed layout would result in safe ingress and egress of vehicles. This would be to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal site lies within the Langham Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The character of this Conservation Area is primarily that of a traditional village with dwellings of predominately traditional design. The proposal, due to its scale and design, would preserve the character and appearance of the Langham Conservation Area. Nevertheless, in the light of the harm I have identified above, this does not justify allowing the appeal.

In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. Where there are examples nearby of parking spaces at right angles to the road, they are not directly comparable and, in particular, they have open front boundaries. I have determined the proposal before me on its individual merits.

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that to vary conditions 2 and 5 of planning application 2024/1057/FUL as proposed would be to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Policy SP15 in the Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (2014), where it seeks to ensure that development makes provision for safe access by vehicles and pedestrians. This policy is broadly in accordance with the Framework, where it seeks to ensure highway safety.