Two storey rear extension to detached property and provision of two car parking spaces to frontage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2018 by Elaine Worthington BA (Hons) MTP MUED MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3196013 18 Carr Wood Gardens, Calverley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS28 5UD  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 and Mrs Flannery against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/07905/FU, dated 28 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 January 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey rear extension to detached property and provision of two car parking spaces to frontage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey rear extension to detached property and provision of two car parking spaces to frontage at 18 Carr Wood Gardens, Calverley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS28 5UD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/07905/FU, dated 28 November 2017, 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: Location and Site Plans 01A, Existing Plans and Elevations 02, Proposed Ground Floor Plan 03A, and Proposed First Floor Plan and Elevations 04A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be constructed on the north flank elevation. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed car parking spaces on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached house in a housing estate of similar properties. It is situated on the corner of Carr Wood Close and has an open front lawn area to Carr Wood Gardens. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3196013 2 4. The proposal includes a two storey rear extension to which the Council raises no objections. It also incorporates the removal of the existing hardstanding and parking area to the side and rear of the property (which is accessed from Carr Wood Close) and the creation of a new hardstanding area for two cars to the front of the property in Carr Wood Gardens. The existing car parking area would be enclosed within the rear garden to provide additional private amenity space to compensate for that which would be lost to the proposed extension. 5. Although there are no highway safety objections to the proposal, the Council is concerned that the proposed new hardstanding to the front of the appeal property would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host property and the wider street scene. The parking area would be 6 metres by 5.4 metres and served by a drop kerb that would be about 5.5 metres in length. Whilst it would take up a good deal of the property’s frontage and lead to the introduction of car parking there on what is a prominent corner plot, the submitted site plan shows areas of garden would be retained to either side of it. As such, even though it would reduce the extent of the appeal property’s front lawn, the proposed parking area would not take over the whole of the front garden and some elements of greenery would be maintained. 6. The Council recognises that the properties fronting Carr Wood Gardens are generally characterised by open plan front garden areas with single width driveways to the side or rear of the dwellings. I saw at my visit that car parking generally takes place to the frontage of the properties on the estate which are already somewhat dominated by vehicles. I also observed that the appeal property is somewhat unusual in occupying a corner position and having parking only to its rear. Although not all the frontages nearby provide double width driveways to allow two cars to be parked parallel to each other (as is proposed by the appeal scheme), there a number of examples nearby in both Carr Wood Gardens and Carr Wood Close where this is the case. These include some instances where the entire frontages are given over to hardstanding and no elements of landscaping at all are retained. 7. The Council acknowledges these examples but advises that they appear to have been constructed without consent or under permitted development rights. Nevertheless, they have established such frontage car parking as a feature of the area. Although the proposal would lead to parking on the frontage it would not permanently enclose the front garden or undermine the open plan nature of the estate. As set out above, some front garden would be maintained at the appeal property and would remain a feature in Carr Wood Gardens. In this context, and taking the above factors into account, I am not persuaded that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the host property unduly. Nor would it appear significantly at odds with the other properties nearby where some degree of frontage parking is already prevalent. Thus the proposal would not stand out as a particularly unsympathetic feature in the street scene. 8. I have had regard to the Council’s argument that to approve the appeal proposal would set a precedent for other similar developments the cumulative impact of which would be harmful. However, no directly comparable sites to which this might apply have been put forward. Each application and appeal must be determined on its own merits and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify withholding planning permission in this case. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3196013 3 9. I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed car parking spaces would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area. As such, I see no conflict with Policy P10 of the Leeds Core Strategy which requires development to provide good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function. The proposal would not be contrary to Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan which expects proposals to resolve detailed planning considerations including design and seek to avoid problems of environmental intrusion (amongst other things). 10. I note that the Leeds Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that in circumstances where parking areas remove much of a front garden or cause significant additional water run-off this may not be appropriate. However, in this instance I see no conflict with SPD Policy HDG1 referred to by the Council which requires alterations to respect the scale, form, proportions, character and appearance of the main dwelling and the locality. Nor would the proposal undermine the core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework to seek to secure high quality design. Other matters 11. Subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure no windows are inserted in the flank elevation, the Council finds the two storey rear extension proposed as part of the scheme to be acceptable. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to come to a different view on this matter. Conclusion and Conditions 12. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. 13. A condition requiring development in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition to ensure the use of matching materials in relation to the extension is required in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Additionally a condition to preclude the insertion of flank windows under permitted development rights is required in the interests of the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers. Elaine Worthington INSPECTOR