Appeal 6006488

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development on the application form is extensive and includes wording that is not a description of development. Therefore, I have used the description from the Council’s decision notice as this accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and ii) highways safety, in terms of parking.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling located in a residential area. The dwellings on this part of [site address] are set within terraces. The terraces are setback from the highway behind modest, but nevertheless open frontages enclosed by predominantly low level fencing. On my site visit I observed that none of the frontages in this area are used for off-street parking and thus provide a degree of separation between the buildings and the highway. Furthermore, most of the frontages feature soft landscaping including grass, planting and hedges. The open frontages together with the subtle landscaping are therefore important features which contribute positively to an open and verdant character in an otherwise dense urban environment.

With regards to the appeal site itself, it too reflects the positive characteristics of the street scene, given that it is also open and features several large plants, as well as a hedge along the front and side boundary to the footpath. Accordingly, the appeal site also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

I have had regard to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD). Policy HDG1 of the SPD advises that alterations should respect the character and appearance of the locality. It also advises that alterations which harm the character and appearance of the locality will be resisted.

By virtue of its location to the front of the property, the proposed off-street parking space at the appeal site would harmfully contrast with the open frontages of the dwellings on this part of [site address] . It would also undermine the separation between the dwellings and the highway. Furthermore, the removal of some of the areas of soft landscaping to create the hardstanding area would weaken the subtle, yet verdant character of the street scene. Consequently, the hardstanding and off-street parking space would be incongruous in these surroundings and would erode the subtle, but important open and verdant characteristics of the area. Even though hedges are shown to the site boundaries on the block plan, they would not sufficiently mitigate the harmful visual effects of the proposal.

The appellant refers to driveways at 19 and 23 [site address] , as well as other developments on [address] and [address]. However, the full details of these including the planning background have not been provided in order to make a direct comparison. Furthermore, none of these appear to be on the same part of [site address] as the appeal proposal. Accordingly, I can only give these examples limited weight and they do not alter my findings on this main issue.

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy P10 of the [name] (2019) (CS) and Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP), which require that developments are appropriate to their context and respect the character and amenity of the locality.

For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the SPD and National Planning Policy Framework, which advises that developments should respect the character and appearance of the locality and add to the overall quality of the area.

On this main issue, the Council cite conflict with Saved Policy BD6 of the UDP. However, as this relates to extensions and alterations to the original building, it is not determinative on this main issue.

The appeal site is located close to the junction where the main part of [site address] meets the section where the appeal property is located. There is also a footpath to the front and side of the property, as well as two bollards on the corner of the street near to where the access to the proposed off-street parking space would be located. The proposed block plan suggests vehicles would enter the proposed parking space from within the cul-de-sac, next to the existing bollard.

The main parties disagree over whether or not the off-street parking space would meet the minimum measurements as required by the Council. However, even though the appellant states that the space would meet the Council’s standards, there are no annotations on the plans in order to confirm the exact measurements of the parking space. Furthermore, the Council have not confirmed the size of a parking space it requires.

Based on the evidence, including the appellant’s measurements, the depth of the parking space between the front elevation of the house and the footpath edge would be approximately 5m. This is likely to be an adequate depth to accommodate a vehicle.

However, with regards to the width of the access to the off-street parking space, there is insufficient information to confirm that the appellant’s measurement as shown in the photograph corresponds to the location of the driveway as shown on the plans. From the plans, the width does appear to be narrow, and this is also supported by the measurements in the Council’s officer report. Consequently, and in combination with the bollard directly outside the intended access, the narrow width would make it difficult for any vehicles to safely manoeuvre into the off-street parking space.

With the above factors in mind, the insufficient width of the off-street parking space would result in it being difficult for vehicles to manoeuvre into the space. Vehicles would be very likely to park in a precarious position, require multiple movements over the footway to position the vehicle correctly, or overhang the footpath. This would lead to the potential for conflict between vehicles and users of the footpath, including pedestrians such as those with prams and small children, as well as those with accessibility needs. The potential for conflict would be worsened by the proximity to the bollards which create further obstructions along the footpath. There is insufficient evidence before me to lead me to a different conclusion on this main issue.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It would conflict with Policy T2 of the CS and Saved Policy GP5 of the UDP, which amongst other matters, require that developments are adequately served by safe and secure access.

The appellant refers to the Council having approved a metal shipping container at 14 [site address] . However, I have not been provided with the full planning background of this. In any case, a shipping container is a different proposal to an off-street parking space. It is not therefore directly comparable to the extent that it would justify the proposal.

I also acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the support for electric vehicle charging in the National Planning Policy Framework, the reference to the [name] and the benefits in terms of facilitating zero-emission transport. However, such benefits do not outweigh the totality of the harm in terms of character and appearance and highway safety, which would be significant and long lasting.

That the proposal would have a negligible impact on local biodiversity is a neutral factor which does not weigh in favour of the appeal.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other identified considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Consequently, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.