Appeal 6008754

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal accords with the aims of the development plan in relation to the provision of off-street car parking.

The appeal property is a large detached 2-storey house with accommodation within the roof. It is set within a large, verdant plot and has a relatively large front garden enclosed by a low brick wall and hedge facing the street. To one side of the house there is a garage with a driveway leading to it which is capable of accommodating 2 cars. The property is situated in a residential area that includes substantial detached properties of varied style and age. The portion of road in front of the appeal property includes cycle lanes and is bounded by relatively wide pavements. The property is situated within an area that has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 3, moderate accessibility.

The appeal proposal would comprise the removal of a portion of the front boundary wall and hedge and the formation of a second vehicular access and driveway next to the boundary shared with [address]. This would provide sufficient space to accommodate 2 cars.

The Highways Authority has objected to the proposal and refers to Policy P54 of the Southwark Local Plan 2019-2036 (2022) (SLP) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) the overarching aims of which are to reduce adverse environmental impacts and carbon emissions through car-free development in highly accessible areas and reduced reliance on the private car. Similarly, SLP Policy P50 states that development must minimise the demand for private car journeys. To achieve these aims both plans set maximum off-street car parking levels for new development. For new dwellings in [name] boroughs such as Southwark with a PTAL of 3 the maximum level is set at 0.25 spaces per dwelling.

In respect of circumstances where additional off-street car parking spaces are proposed for existing dwellings Part 3 of SLP Policy P54 states that this should be determined by considering 2 matters. Firstly, the anticipated demand for the parking spaces and tenure of the development; and secondly the quality and accessibility of the local public transport network and the access to local amenities.

I note there is an absence of on-street parking capacity close to the appeal property. I also recognise that due to its size and substantial grounds the property requires maintenance and therefore space for contractors to park. The appellant’s personal circumstances and the need for visitor parking is also noted. However, it is not clear from the information before me that the existing provision, namely a garage and 2 car parking spaces, is not sufficient to accommodate the levels of current and anticipated demand described in the appellant’s submission.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the aims of the development plan policies cited above.

The existence of substantial off-street car parking areas in front of some nearby properties is noted. However, each planning application and appeal needs to be considered in its individual merits having regard to current development plan policies and there is no evidence before me to indicate that any of these parking areas has been formed recently.

The Council’s reasons for refusal refers to the absence of information regarding design standards for the crossover. [name] have found the principle of the proposal to be unacceptable, consideration of this matter is not necessary.

The appellant has raised concerns related to the Council’s processing of the planning application. These administrative issues are not relevant to the consideration of a planning appeal.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.