Excavate grass verge on side of existing drive, erect retaining wall no higher than existing level to make hardstanding area for off-road parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2018 by Timothy C King BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A2280/D/18/3194234 15 Limetree Close, Chatham, Kent ME5 0DR  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 Rhys Simmons against the decision of The Medway Council.  The application Ref MC/17/3447, dated 5 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 December 2017.  The development proposed is described as ‘Excavate grass verge on side of existing drive, erect retaining wall no higher than existing level to make hardstanding area for off-road parking.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 1. The proposal is retrospective in nature. However, S55 of the Main Act does not make a distinction between development already carried out and proposals for such. In reaching my decision I have therefore treated the case as a proposal for the development of land. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. Limetree Close is situated on sloping land which climbs to both the south and east. The appeal property reflects the change in land levels with the dwelling sitting markedly above street level. The properties on this side of the street show steep, upward sloping driveways for off-street parking purposes or otherwise have retained lawned front curtilage areas, such as is the case with No 13. 4. The development has involved the excavation of the slope below the dwelling to create a level area for parking, the erection of brick built retaining walls to the parking area’s sides and rear, the formation of steps to reach the front door and associated railings. At the time of my site visit the proposal had not been fully implemented in that the vehicular crossover had not been created, and the parking area had not been surfaced as intended. 5. During my site visit I observed that this is the only such excavation along Limetree Close and although I note that the appellant indicates there are other Appeal Decision APP/A2280/D/18/3194234 2 similar developments within a one mile radius of the appeal site I have not been provided with details of their particular locations. 6. I acknowledge the appellant’s point that the level parking space and steps represent a safer arrangement and is particularly helpful to his partner who suffers from significant backpain. However, I also sympathise with the Council’s view that this is a harsh form of development which appears somewhat intrusive, certainly in its current form. In this connection I have looked through the appellant’s submission yet there is no mention of an intention to landscape the development or undertake any degree of planting which might have softened and mitigated the excavation. 7. Should I have been minded to allow this appeal and grant planning permission, in the absence of any such proposals no mechanism would exist for imposing a condition that might serve to ameliorate the hard, cold appearance of the retaining walls. I find that the development as proposed and built is visually uncharacteristic of the surrounding area and the fact that the Council did not receive any representations objecting to the development does not sufficiently weigh in its favour. 8. I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to the design objectives of Policy BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan and also relevant advice within the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. Timothy C King INSPECTOR