Appeal 6004458

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has suggested that the use identified for the ground floor guest room on the application drawings could be changed to reduce the number of bedrooms within the property, and therefore the parking requirement. However, as this would introduce changes to the householder application, to which the Council had not been party, I consider this may represent procedural unfairness. I have therefore determined the appeal based on the evidence before me.

The main issue is whether the proposal would provide adequate car parking for occupiers of the dwelling, having particular regard to land ownership.

The appeal property, No. [site address] (No.18) consists of a two-storey hipped roof end-terrace property in a row of four similar sized dwellings, located on the north-eastern side of the road at a point where it makes a sharp 90-degree bend to the west. The property has an existing single storey detached outbuilding to its west and a single storey flat roofed extension to its rear garden elevation.

At my visit the frontage area of the property was fully laid to small element paving, from the rear of its junction with the public footpath up to its principal elevation. In addition, this paving ran up to the parking apron and side gable of the property at No.[address] (No.16) to its west, and up to the appeal site’s boundary with the front garden of No.[address] (No.20) to its east. This paved frontage gave the impression of being the parking area for the appeal property, though no cars were parked on it at my visit.

The proposal would demolish the detached outbuilding, introducing a two-storey extension to the western gable of the property in its place. This extension would project behind the line of the rear elevation, where a further section of extension would be introduced above part of the existing single storey extension. A separate single storey outbuilding, identified as being for gym and office use, though with a shower room also identified on the submitted drawings, would be erected to the northern end of the rear garden.

The application drawings identify the ground floor of the side extension as being a guest room, together with a dining room and shower room facilities. Two internal doors are indicated connecting this part of the extension to the existing dwelling. However, the layout also includes a separate external door to this section of the extension, opening directly off the parking area to the front of the property. It would therefore allow usage of this section of the proposal, independently of the rest of the dwelling, though there is no suggestion in the application that the proposal is for the provision of an annexe.

The upper floor of the proposal would provide additional bedroom and bathing accommodation, accessed from within the circulation areas of the existing dwelling. The proposal would therefore have a total of five bedrooms.

Given the number of bedrooms proposed, Appendix 3 of the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, [name] – Supplementary Planning Document 2014 (the SPD), defines that 3 off-street parking spaces would be required. The application drawings identify 3 parking spaces within the frontage of the appeal property.

However, the Council identify that by reference to [name] documents, the red line boundary defined on the application site/block plan, includes land that is not within the appellants ownership, and that the relevant ownership certificate has not been provided. The width of the driveway access, at a little over 2 metres is also considered not to meet the minimum guidance within the SPD.

At my visit, it was clear that the existing frontage has been used for parking for some time. However, it was also clear at my visit that at the central point of the access position, a concrete lamp post was present within the public footpath, preventing direct access from the highway to the appeal property. In addition, no drop kerb was present to provide access directly to the proposed parking area of No.18. However, drop kerbs were present to provide access to both No.16 and No. 20 to the west and east of the appeal site. It was also evident that a section of the boundary fence between No.18 and No.20, adjacent to the rear of the footpath, had been removed, providing access over the drop kerb and part of the frontage of No.20 to the appeal property.

There is no evidence before me which identifies the correct extent of the land ownership of the appeal property, or of any legal agreements or easements between the appellant and the owners of the adjacent properties, that would evidence either an existing or future legal method of vehicular access to the frontage of the appeal property.

Given the above, the appeal proposal does not demonstrate that adequate safe vehicular access and parking can be provided within the appeal site, to meet the increased requirements of the SPD, resulting from the proposed development.

I therefore conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Black County Core Strategy (2011), Policy SAD EOS 9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012), with Appendix 3 of the SPD and with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which require, among other things, that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.