Appeal 6004500

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed access on highway safety; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Fulwood Conservation Area.

[address], the C245, is a key route through the residential suburb of Fulwood. The road has a 30mph speed limit outside of the appeal property and has a series of bends and a change in levels down towards the junction with [address]. There is a bus stop on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, unrestricted on-street parking outside the property and is within proximity to a range of local shops and facilities which act as a local centre for the wider neighbourhood. Mature landscaping is located within the front garden of the appeal property and the neighbouring property of No.78.

Given the proximity of the appeal site to the bus stop and local services and facilities, there is a reasonable likelihood that the pavement outside of the appeal site is well used by pedestrians, including children and those with disabilities. Moreover, as a busy route through the local neighbourhood, I observed during my site visit that [address] was well trafficked including a regular bus service whose route included [address] and [address].

The space proposed for a driveway would be to the front of the appeal property. Whilst its dimensions would accord with the ambitions set out by the Council in its SPG on ‘[address] Extensions’, specifically Guideline 8, its limited size would result in vehicles accessing or egressing the parking space in reverse.

Such manoeuvres would, given the highway conditions on [address], be likely to result in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles using the new parking space, particularly given the limited visibility that the boundary walls and the mature landscaping within the host property and neighbouring properties causes. Drivers of vehicles reversing out of the driveway would not be aware of pedestrians on the pavement and users of the pavement would unlikely be aware of vehicles exiting the area. The matter of forward visibility is not in dispute, but a condition preventing vehicles leaving the site in reverse gear would not be reasonable and would not comply with the tests relating to conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Moreover, if there were parked cars within the vicinity of the appeal site, these would likely obstruct views of vehicles exiting the driveway or using the road. The nature and speed of the road at the proposed access point, particularly the presence of bends in either direction, reduces the anticipation time for drivers to react to stationary or manoeuvring vehicles in the road. In the event that a bus was at the nearby stop, vehicles heading down the hill would be likely travelling on the wrong side of the carriageway, taking them close to the new driveway, exacerbating the risk of a conflict between vehicles using the site and other road users.

The appellant has referred to other development in the surrounding area in regard to the issues of highway safety, most notably the access arrangements to [address]. I have taken these factors into account so far as I am able to, based on the information before me. However, I am not aware of the full circumstances of these other cases and in any event each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits. As a result, reference to these matters has not altered my findings in relation to the main issue.

I note the suggestion that the speed limit should be reduced to 20mph if the road is considered unsafe, but there is no mechanism before me to secure this. Taking all these matters into account and acknowledging that the proposal would remove one of the appellant’s vehicles from parking in the road I would conclude that the proposed driveway would result in an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policy H14 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan, specifically where it states that new development should provide safe access to the highway network and not endanger pedestrians. The proposal is also not consistent with Guideline 8 of the Council’s ‘[address] [name] which relates to the provision of a pedestrian visibility splay.

Additionally, I have had due regard to the Framework which indicates that development should be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appeal site is within Fulwood Conservation Area (FCA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The significance of the FCA includes a number of features of architectural value. This includes the prominence of stone walls to the frontage of properties and the use of local stone for such boundary features. From undertaking my site visit it is apparent that such features make a positive contribution to the character of the wider area. However, it was notable that many of these walls have visual breaks in them to accommodate either off-street parking or pedestrian access.

Whilst visual breaks have been achieved, these have not resulted in the substantive loss of stone walls to the frontage of properties and can be seen as ancillary components to those frontages. The ancillary nature of these gaps, such as that identified by the appellant at [address], have not damaged the positive contribution that these boundary treatments can make to the wider character and appearance of the area nor the properties themselves.

The proposed development would involve the removal of a portion of the stone wall to the frontage of the appeal property, measuring approximately one third of its current length. This would result in more than half of the original wall and key features, such as the gate posts, being retained. This would ensure that the proposed changes to the frontage of the property would remain an ancillary component when viewed from the street and the prominence of the stone wall in this location would be retained. In this regard, the proposal would be consistent with Guidelines 1 and 2 of the Council’s SPG on ‘[address] Extensions’ which seek compatibility with wider character and that proposals do not detract from the wider appearance of the area.

I note the Council’s concern over the loss of landscaping to the front of the appeal property and the visual impact on wider character through the parking of vehicles to frontages. [name] would acknowledge that an over prevalence of car parking to the frontage of properties could potentially have a negative effect on local character, I observed during my site visit a number of properties with parking to street-facing frontages. If sensitively designed and landscaped, using suitable materials and treatment, there is no reason why this issue could not have been dealt with via the imposition of a condition should the development have been otherwise acceptable.

For these reasons, I consider that the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the significance of the conservation area and would not result in harm to its character. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Policy CS74 of the [name] which expects high quality development to enhance distinctive features, including the townscape character and their associated built form and style. The proposal is also not in conflict with Policies H14, BE5, BE15, BE16 or BE17 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan which seeks high quality design that complements the form of its surroundings in terms of scale and character and preserve or enhance both Conservation Areas and buildings of special historic interest. There is no conflict with the statutory test set out in the Act.

I have considered the appeal on its own merits based on the scheme before me and the issues regarding the handling or interpretation of the application by the Council are not matters for me to consider here.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.