For the creation of new vehicle crossover, boundary railings with gates and front garden area alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 September 2016 by Gareth W Thomas BSc(Hons), MSc(Dist), PgDip, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 September 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/16/3155158 156 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey TW9 2AU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Colman McCarthy against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 16/2056/HOT, dated 24 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 19 July 2016.  The development proposed is for the creation of new vehicle crossover, boundary railings with gates and front garden area alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the creation of new vehicle crossover, boundary railings with gates and front garden area alterations at 156 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey TW9 2AU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/2056/HOT, dated 24 May 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: KRX1 and KRX2A. 3) All hard and soft landscape works including reinstatement of the grass verge as shown on the approved drawings shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. 4) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the hardsurfacing including the crossover within the green verge hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) No development shall take place until full details of the operation of the turntable have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the approved turntable shall be permanently operable and be available for use for its intended purpose of enabling vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/16/3155158 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is located within the designated Kew Road Conservation Area (CA) and is a Building of Townscape Heritage (BTH). The property comprises a handsome and rather grand three storey late Victorian villa with full height projecting bays at three levels together with a steeply pitched dormer on the front façade. It fronts onto Kew Road opposite open fields comprising Old Deer Park and behind a grass verge. 4. The significance of the CA is derived from the relationship of this linear road containing many fine Victorian houses from the late nineteenth century with the Botanical Garden boundary wall and other open spaces beyond. The linear nature is reinforced by existing boundary features to dwellings fronting Kew Road such as high walls and railings. The property does not presently have direct access from Kew Road. 5. The proposal would see the provision of a vehicle crossover, together with alterations to the front garden area to provide off-street parking facilities for the property. The alterations would include the installation of a turntable that would enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear together with the erection of metal gates/railings that would form the front boundary to the host property behind which would be soft planting and permeable paving. 6. The Council’s adopted Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (DMP) at Policy TP8 in relation to the retention and new provision of off street parking seeks to ensure amongst other things that such provision does not have an adverse impact on the area in terms of the street scene. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Front garden and Other Off Street Parking Standards explains that approval for a crossover will not normally be given where its construction would involve the removal of a grass verge where this is of 1.0 metre width or more as the removal of part of the verge would have an adverse effect on the street scene. 7. The Council has not raised any highway safety concerns and I agree with this view. 8. A number of properties in the immediate vicinity of the appeal property have parking areas to the front of their properties that have resulted in the complete removal of the green highway verge. Whilst the green verge once formed a largely continuous and integral part of the street scene in this neighbourhood, the effect has now diminished to such an extent that the appeal property and its road frontage now appears as an isolated and forlorn reminder of what has been lost. 9. Given what I saw during my site visit, the particular section of grass verge is at best patchy and contributes little to the overall character of the street scene. Its modification through partial reinstatement and use of appropriate block materials would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the CA. Moreover, the proposals in terms of providing a front boundary that is in keeping with existing character would have a beneficial effect to the point of enhancing the character of the CA. As the Council’s own Conservation Officer Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/16/3155158 3 noted, the overall effect of the frontage will be greatly improved. Given the proposal that would see traditional railings, soft planting and the use of a proprietary paving product that would allow grass to grow through, the combined effect in my view would have a visually beneficial effect on the street scene. 10. Accordingly, the proposed development would not be in conflict with DMP Policy TP8 described above and given the proposed conditions, would not be contrary to the Council’s SPD. Conditions 11. The Council has suggested a number of conditions whilst the Council’s Transport Officer has also suggested further areas for possible conditions. The appellant however considers that the submitted plans show all required details sufficient to obviate the need for conditions. I have paid regard to the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance on the use of planning conditions. Despite the appellant’s misgivings, I consider that some conditions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. I have also amended others for clarity. Notwithstanding the appellant’s belief, given the nature of the conditions that I intend to impose, I am satisfied that there would be no injustice to either party. 12. In addition to conditions specifying the period for commencement of development and an approved list of drawings, which are necessary to provide certainty, a condition is also required to require implementation of the landscaping proposals in the interests of visual amenity. Details of materials are necessary to ensure that the appearance of the grass verge is maintained visually in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. Finally, details of how the turntable would operate and requirement for its ongoing use are necessary in the interests of highway safety. I do not consider that further details of the access or details of the railings are necessary as these are clearly depicted on the approved drawings and did not in any event give rise to concerns at the application stage. Conclusions 13. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should succeed. Gareth W Thomas INSPECTOR