For a garage and carport conversion to habitable rooms

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 November 2017 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 24 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/17/3182776 37 Glyndebourne Park, Orpington, BR6 8EX  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 Peter Turner against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/17/02422/FULL6, dated 23 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2017.  The development proposed is for a garage and carport conversion to habitable rooms. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garage and carport conversion to habitable rooms at 37 Glyndebourne Park, Orpington, BR6 8EX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/17/02422/FULL6, dated 23 May 2017 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: RNS/364/1A, RNS/364/2B, RNS/364/3A, 1:1250 scale location plan and 1:200 scale block plan. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the conversion hereby permitted shall match those of the host dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on road safety. Reasons 3. Glyndebourne Park comprises a cul-de-sac with two turning heads. The Appeal dwelling is one of four modern detached dwellings which front onto one of the turning heads. This development was built separately to the rest of Glyndebourne Park and its highway was not adopted until 2002. The road here has a concrete block highway surface and is visually separated from the original cul-de-sac by a narrowing of the highway, which is flanked on both sides by grass/planted verges. 4. The remainder of Glyndebourne Park has a standard tarmac road which is flanked by pavements on both sides. Within both parts of Glyndebourne Park Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3182776 2 the dwellings all appear to benefit from at least two on-site parking spaces and there are a number of opportunities for on-street parking. At the time of the Appeal site visit there was just one car parked in the highway in the whole of Glyndebourne Park and many of the on-site parking spaces were not in use. 5. Collectively policy T18 of the London Borough of Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seek to ensure that road safety is not adversely affected. Policy T3 of the UDP advises that maximum off-street parking should not exceed the parking standards set out in appendix II of the UDP. Policy T3 of the UDP sets no minimum parking standard and the supporting text advises that the objective of policy T3 of the UDP is to minimise travel by car. 6. The Council’s maximum parking standard for detached houses, as set out in annex II of the UDP, is one/two spaces. It also advises that garage spaces should be a minimum of 2.4 metres wide x six metres deep. This standard is consistent with those set out in the Parking Standards – Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2016 (London Plan). Policy 6.13 of the London Plan states that in outer London boroughs account should be taken of current and projected pressures for on-street parking and their bearing on all road users as well as the criteria set out in paragraph 39 of the NPPF. Paragraph 39 of the NPPF sets out various factors that should be taken into account in setting local parking standards. 7. With the Appeal property the existing garage and carport are both less than six metres in depth and the existing carport also serves the front door. When cars are parked in the carport they obstruct access to and from the dwelling. This was evident at the time of the Appeal site visit. 8. The area to the front of the car port is wide enough for disabled use and some five metres in depth. This strip of land currently forms the vehicular crossover which serves the existing carport and garage and so is highly unlikely to be used by others for parking. From the evidence submitted it would appear that this area of land is owned by the Appellant, but forms part of the land adopted by the highway authority in 2002. It is noted that there is a pavement on either side of this vehicular access, although the pavement to the front of the Appeal dwelling does not lead anywhere and ends in line with the northern boundary of the Appeal property. 9. With the proposal the main entrance to the dwelling would be moved to the side wall of the proposed kitchen/diner and so there would be no need for visitors to the property to use the area of the vehicular crossover, or the pavement to the front of the Appeal dwelling. The main entrance door to the dwelling would not be obstructed by parked cars. 10. There is ample room within the road immediately to the front of the Appeal dwelling for three cars to park and capacity for at least three more cars to park elsewhere within the turning head, whilst still providing ample room for vehicles to turn. A short distance to the northeast in Glyndebourne Park there are further opportunities for on-street parking. 11. Overall, as a result of the proposal, the on and off-street parking opportunities within this small cul-de-sac would remain considerable and there would be ample room for vehicle turning within the two turning heads. Accordingly, the proposal would not have a materially detrimental impact on highway safety. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/17/3182776 3 12. In the future were any proposals to come forward to convert garages or build on car parking spaces within Glyndebourne Park, the impact of those proposals on the provision of on and off-street parking provision and on highway safety would need to be assessed at that time. As the Appeal proposal would not have a materially adverse impact on the availability of parking spaces or highway safety it would not set a precedent for developments that would result in such harm. 13. Visually, the proposed conversion would require relatively minor changes to the front and side elevation of the host dwelling. These changes would respect the proportions and detailing of the dwelling and provided they were constructed from matching external materials they would blend in satisfactorily with the host dwelling and its surroundings. As stated by the Council this is a matter that could be dealt with by condition. The Council has also suggested the imposition of a condition requiring the proposed scheme to be constructed in accordance with the submitted drawings. This condition is necessary in the interests of certainty. 14. I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on highway safety and would comply with policies T3 & T18 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR