Single storey rear pitched roof addition and first floor side addition above the existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2018 by Rory MacLeod BA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V1505/D/18/3196111 10 The Lindens, Langdon Hills, Basildon SS16 6RP  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 Kenny Breeze against the decision of Basildon District Council.  The application Ref 17/01731/FULL, dated 6 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear pitched roof addition and first floor side addition above the existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear pitched roof addition and first floor side addition above the existing garage at 10 The Lindens, Langdon Hills, Basildon SS16 6RP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01731/FULL, dated 6 December 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling. 4) Demolition or construction works shall take place only between hours of 0700 -1900 on Mondays to Fridays, 0800 – 1900 on Saturdays, and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the adequacy of on-site parking arrangements and the effect of the development on highway safety. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached house in a modern estate of houses arranged informally around short roads. It is located close to the end of a cul- de-sac close to a turning head that leads to a vehicular crossover serving off street parking for nos. 10, 12 and 14 The Lindens. There is a garage to the side of the house set well behind the frontage with hard standing areas in front of this and forward of the main wall to the house. Appeal Decision APP/V1505/D/18/3196111 2 4. The Council does not object to the proposed single and first floor extension in respect of its impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or on the character and appearance of the area. I have no reason to disagree with these findings. 5. The Council’s concerns relate to the consequent shortfall of on-site parking and possible harm arising from additional on-street parking as the proposal involves the conversion of the garage to living accommodation. Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007) (LP) states “Planning permission for new residential development, and for the alteration and extension of existing dwellings, will be refused if it causes material harm in any of the following ways:- v. Traffic danger or congestion”. 6. The Essex County Council Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document (2009) recommends two on-site parking spaces with dimensions of 5.5 metres by 2.9 metres are provided for a dwelling containing two or more bedrooms, such as the appeal site. The Highway Authority acknowledges that the dimensions of the garage do not meet these requirements but the garage was included as part of the on-site parking allocation at the time the house was built. There is only one space on the remaining hard standing areas that complies with the recommended dimensions and so there is a deficit of one on-site parking space. 7. The planning application form indicates that the proposal would not affect existing car parking arrangements at the site. At the time of my site visit, the garage was occupied by domestic appliances, bikes, garden equipment and tools; it did not give the impression of being regularly used for parking. The appellant’s submissions show a photograph of two cars being parked on the frontage, one in front of the garage on the full sized space and the other in front of the house on an irregularly shaped area adequate for a relatively small car to be parked within the curtilage. Whilst this arrangement may suffice for the present occupiers of the site, it is necessary to consider the needs of future occupiers and if any harm to the highway would arise from alternative parking arrangements. 8. The vehicle crossover at the end of the turning head in front of the appeal site leads to a circulation area shared by nos. 10, 12 and 14 The Lindens. The hard stand in front of no. 10 is large enough for the parking of a medium sized car without obstructing the access to the garages at no. 12. A larger car or a third car would need to be parked on the highway. The carriageway to The Lindens adjacent to the site is relatively narrow and there is not a separate footway. At the time of my site visit there was one car parked to the side of the road but capacity for several more to be parked without unduly restricting the width of the carriageway. The site is towards the end of a cul-de-sac, so the volume of traffic using the road would be low. 9. Having regard to site circumstances, it is likely that householder parking demands would continue to be met by on-site parking arrangements. But even if some on-street parking were to result, this would be unlikely to have a material effect on highway safety in the vicinity of the site. The identified shortage of on-site parking provision would not therefore result in any conflict with Policy BAS BE12 of the LP. 10. In reaching these findings I have noted the comments from a local resident and that no objection is raised on parking grounds. Appeal Decision APP/V1505/D/18/3196111 3 Conclusion 11. For the reasons given and having regard to all matter raised the appeal is allowed. I shall grant planning permission subject to conditions necessary to limit the duration of the permission to not exceed three years, to list the plan numbers in the interests of certainty, to require the use of matching materials to secure a satisfactory appearance and to control working hours to safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings. I have not inserted conditions suggested by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer in relation to dust suppression and waste disposal having regard to the limited scale of the proposed development and to the existence of separate controls to mitigate nuisance in relation to these matters. Rory MacLeod INSPECTOR