Formation of new driveway on front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2018 by S Rennie BA (Hons) BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/D/18/3193505 6 Hillside Close, Paulton, Bristol BS39 7PN  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 Phillip Moon against the decision of Bath & North East Somerset Council.  The application Ref 17/04876/FUL, dated 6 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is described as “ Formation of new driveway on front garden. Works involve construction of r etaining wall, new block paved driveway and dropping of kerbs & footway to the public footpath. Permission to drop the kerbs has already been granted by Highways.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of new driveway on front garden. Works involve construction of retaining wall, new block paved driveway and dropping of kerbs & footway to the public footpath, at 6 Hillside Close, Paulton, Bristol BS39 7PN, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/04876/FUL, dated 6 October 2017. Procedural Matter 2. Whilst the description of development in the banner heading above is as per the planning application form, the sentence referring to the dropped kerbs being granted by the Highways Authority has been omitted as this is not necessary to describe the development. I shall consider the appeal accordingly. 3. The development appears to have been completed and I was able to view this on site. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is within a residential cul-de-sac. There are driveways to serve most of the properties, but some can be very steep up towards the house, such as at No 6 Hillside Close, which also has a carport to the end of the driveway. The development has formed a level off-street parking space to what was a Appeal Decision APP/F0114/D/18/3193505 2 section of the front garden, which at the time of my site visit was being used for the parking of two cars. 6. Whilst it is accepted that the development has taken away a section of the front garden, which was a form of private green space, there are several other examples of hardstanding areas to the front of neighbouring dwellings in this street, to the extent that it is now part of its character. Whilst some of these neighbouring hardstanding areas may not have the benefit of planning permission they nonetheless have cumulatively become a common feature within the street. The development at No 6 has similarities to some of these other hardstanding/parking areas. 7. The parking area is also of a suitable scale that does not take up the full area to the front of the house as an area of lawn remains, which visually contributes to the street scene. Furthermore, the parking area and retaining walls have incorporated appropriate materials for its setting. 8. In view of the above, I find that the proposal the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal accords with policy D4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (2017), which seeks to, amongst other things, require that development is designed to enhance and contribute towards the public realm, and ensure that car parking does not dominate the design of the public realm. Conditions 9. I have considered the conditions recommended by the Council. However, as the development appears completed it is not possible or necessary to impose a condition requiring it to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 10. I do not regard the Council’s recommended condition for the parking area to be kept free for parking as necessary, as without it the property is still served by the driveway and a carport. Therefore, while this driveway is steep, I am not satisfied that this condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in the interests of amenity and highway safety. 11. I do not regard it as necessary to attach a condition requiring the surfacing of the parking area to be constructed with a bound and compacted surfacing, as recommended by the Council. The parking area already has a block paved surface which is appropriate. There are a some gravelled strips to the side, but this is not the area where vehicles park and so there should be no issue with this being dragged onto the highway. Conclusion 12. Considering the matters above, the appeal should be allowed. Steven Rennie INSPECTOR