Elevated hard standing for car parking and installation of dropped kerb

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X2220/D/17/3183770 Westbourne, 439 Folkestone Road, Dover, Kent, CT17 9JX  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 Barry Williams against the decision of Dover District Council.  The application Ref DOV/17/00516, dated 4 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2017.  The development proposed is described as elevated hard standing for car parking and installation of dropped kerb. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for elevated hard standing for car parking and installation of dropped kerb at Westbourne, 439 Folkestone Road, Dover, Kent, CT17 9JX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DOV/17/00516, dated 4 April 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, drawings numbered: 2030-01, 2930-2 and H.M. Land Registry Plan scale 1:1250 marked Title No. K727801. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the retaining walls, concrete hardstanding, gate piers, stop bollards and fence 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. 4) No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping. The scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the hardstanding; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and Appeal Decision APP/X2220/D/17/3183770 2 species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. 5) No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for the discharge of surface water from the hardstanding away from the highway. Development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details before the new hardstanding hereby approved is first used. 6) No development shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority details of the proposed cross-over, including the design and location of the dropped kerb. Development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details before the new hardstanding hereby approved is first used. Procedural Matters 2. In his evidence the appellant proposes omitting the stop bollards/fence shown on the application drawings and replacing them with a brick wall. However, as this would be a departure from the scheme design as determined by the Council and upon which it has not had an opportunity to comment, I shall accordingly consider this appeal on the basis of the original application drawings 2930-01 and 02 which show stop bollards/fence. Main Issue 3. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the host property and the character and appearance of the street scene. Reasons 4. The property the subject of this appeal, 439 Folkestone Road, is a semi- detached house. Although generally a busy road, kerb side parking is permitted in front of the houses of which number 439 is one of a row of properties facing the road, which, due to the topography of the area, are set about a storey level or so below road level. Accordingly, although somewhat limited by vehicles parked along the side of the road, views from the street are generally restricted to only the first floor windows and the roofs of the dwellings. 5. As I saw only one or two properties have direct vehicular access. A few have raised hardstandings built in their front gardens at the back of the pavement to provide off-street parking. These appeared to be of sufficient size only to accommodate parking for one vehicle. To prevent cars dropping into the front gardens, railings or low walls have been erected around the open sides of the parking bays. 6. The appellant proposes a new access from the road and the construction of a raised hardstanding to provide off street parking for two cars side by side. It would extend approximately two-thirds of the way across the width of the garden and would be contained by brick retaining walls to three sides. Stop bollards and a fence are proposed rather than an enclosing wall as has been built elsewhere. Appeal Decision APP/X2220/D/17/3183770 3 7. On balance, due to the existing kerb side parking, the proposed use of bollards as opposed to enclosing walls at street level and the retained area of garden, I do not consider that the provision of two parking spaces, as opposed to the one which the Council has indicated would be acceptable, would be significantly more intrusive, prominent or so poorly related to the host dwelling house as to cause harm to it or the character and appearance of the street scene. 8. The site is not located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). However, I understand from the Council’s evidence that the land to the rear and rising up behind the property is. From what I saw on site I concur with the Council’s finding that due to the AONB only being open to long distance views the development would, in this case, serve to conserve its setting. 9. Furthermore, I agree with the Council that subject to additional planting, a matter that could be conditioned if I were minded to allow the appeal, the separation distance between the windows of neighbouring properties and the proposed retaining walls would, in my judgment, be sufficient to avoid harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers in terms of their visual amenity. 10. I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would not be so unduly intrusive or prominent as to cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the street scene. It would therefore accord with paragraphs 56-59, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework as it requires, amongst other things, development to be of good design and appropriate landscaping. Conditions 11. The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. For clarity, however, I shall amend the wording where appropriate. 12. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the hardstanding and retaining structure as well as soft landscaping. In the interests of highway safety, I will include conditions in respect of the discharge of surface water from the new hardstanding and the design and construction of the crossover and dropped kerb. 13. In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 14. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR