Garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 March 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/D/17/3192070 21 Iris Drive, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 4RR.  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 Kevin Breakspear against the decision of Swale Borough Council.  The application ref: 17/503858/FULL, dated 23 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2017.  The development proposed is garage conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is whether the loss of the two off-street car parking spaces provided by the garage would give rise to an increase in the demand for kerbside parking. Reasons 3. 21 Iris Drive is a modern detached house within an extensive residential estate to the southeast of the town of Sittingbourne. Within the rear garden of no. 21 and with access to a shared garage court is a detached double garage of brick construction under a pitched and tiled roof. 4. The scheme before me proposes the conversion of the double garage to a small residential annexe comprising living room/kitchen, bedroom and bathroom/w.c. Access to this accommodation would be from the rear private garden of no. 21, with the bedroom and bathroom windows facing towards the shared garage court. 5. The shared garage court also serves a block of three single garages, each of which has a designated parking bay located immediately to the front of the garage doors. No such demarcated parking bays are provided to the front of the garage belonging to no. 21. 6. National policy in the Framework1 contains a presumption in favour of sustain- able development. Paragraph 14 explains that Local Planning Authorities 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. Appeal Decision APP/V2255/D/17/3192070 2 should approve development proposals unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 7. Policy DM 7 of the Local Plan2 states that extant Kent County Council vehicle parking standards will be applied to new development proposals until such time as a local Swale Borough Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) can be adopted. For residential developments the car parking standards will take into account the type, size and mix of dwellings and the need for visitor parking. The vehicle parking standards in respect of 21 Iris Drive as it currently exists require the provision of two spaces. 8. Policy DM 14 sets out development control criteria for all new developments. Amongst other matters these require that development will be both well sited and of a scale, design, appearance and detail that is sympathetic and appro- priate to the location and that it will cause no significant harm to amenity and other sensitive uses or areas. Proposals should achieve safe vehicular access, together with parking and servicing facilities in accordance with the County Council’s standards (Criterion 10). 9. I have noted from the Officer’s Report that the original plans of the estate did not indicate any approved parking spaces in front of the garage serving no. 21 but that the ownership documents provided show the appellant owns a small, irregular shaped area of space in front of the garage. The Officer formed the view that this is sufficient for the parking of one vehicle only. 10. Following the site visit I have been provided with a copy of the plan attached to the registered title, which indicates that the appellant owns part of the garage court. This, however, includes land forming part of the access to the garages belonging to neighbouring occupiers, over which they would presumably enjoy a right of way. 11. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that two cars can be parked in front of the garage upon land within his ownership, such that the Council’s vehicle parking standards would be met. At the time of my site visit two family cars were, indeed, parked in front of the garage within the communal garage court. Their presence created a slight reduction in the ability for other users of the court (presumably 23-27 Iris Drive) to access their garages and car parking spaces. 12. The appellant currently uses the double garage for storage purposes. For this reason, it is argued that there would be no loss of car parking were the garage to be converted to a residential annexe for use by the appellant’s parents or to provide additional accommodation as he and his wife are planning to extend their family. 13. Whilst I can appreciate the benefits to the appellant of creating additional living space, it is nevertheless necessary for me to have regard to the wider parking needs of the estate in my consideration of the appeal proposals. 14. The dense layout of this extensive residential estate, with its narrow roads and accesses, provides very limited opportunities for kerbside parking. As such, the permanent loss of this double garage to its intended use could add to the incidence of on-street parking, albeit that two less satisfactory spaces are 2 Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017. Appeal Decision APP/V2255/D/17/3192070 3 available in front of the garage to no. 21 on land that was originally intended to form part of the access and turning area serving the communal garage court. 15. I am concerned that the additional residential accommodation to be provided could bring with it a demand for car parking by the occupants of the converted garage at some time in the future. Furthermore, the grant of planning permission in this case would set a dangerous precedent for the conversion of other similar garages, further adding to parking pressure within the estate. 16. For all of these reasons I have found upon the main issue that development as proposed, which would result in the permanent loss of two off-street parking spaces provided by the garage, would give rise to an increase in the demand for kerbside parking contrary to the requirements of Policies DM 7 and DM 14 of the Local Plan. Other matters 17. I have noted the objection by the owners of 23 Iris Drive, who are concerned as to the loss of the two parking spaces provided by the garage and the effect of the development upon their privacy. 18. The Planning Officer is satisfied that development as proposed would not bring about any loss of privacy to the occupants of 23 Iris Drive. I agree with that assessment. Nevertheless, the two parking spaces currently utilised by the appellant are sited very close to the living room window of no 23 and their use is somewhat unneighbourly. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR