Partial garage conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/18/3197688 20 Perrine Close, Aylesbury, HP18 0XN  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 Miss Chelsea Freckleton against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The application Ref:17/04702/APP, dated 12 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 February 2018.  The development proposed is partial garage conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on parking provision and the character and appearance of the streetscene. Reasons 3. No.20 Perrine Close is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a modern residential area. It includes an integral double garage and storage area. The proposal would involve the conversion of one of the garages into living space, leaving garaging for a single vehicle. The Council considers that the proposal would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling. However, I note that the proposed conversion would unbalance the general symmetry of the front elevation of the pair of semi-detached houses. 4. The Council’s main objection is that the loss of a garage unit would result in additional on-street parking within an area that already has a shortage of off- street parking spaces. At the time of my site visit in the afternoon period there were a small number of vehicles parked in Perrine Close, partly on the demarcated footway in front of dwellings and also on a grass verge. The Council advises in the officer’s report that from visiting the site on a Saturday afternoon and a Tuesday morning, Perrine Close did not have a lot of on-street parking available and the entrance to the cul de sac was congested with parked cars. The Parish Council has also referred to the Close being congested. The appellant has not provided any detailed evidence to demonstrate that there is no on-street parking problem. 5. The Council considers that the proposal would conflict with Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan policy GP.24 and its Parking Guidelines Supplementary Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3197688 2 Planning Guidance. The requirement for a two-bed dwelling in the guidance is two spaces. However, this is a maximum figure. On this basis a single garage space would be acceptable, but the proposal has to be considered within its context of the relatively high-density housing and the characteristics of the street layout. 6. The appellant has provided car ownership data as a means of demonstrating that the occupants of the proposed two bed dwelling would be unlikely to have more than one vehicle. However, from the evidence before me there does appear to be an on-street parking problem in the vicinity of the appeal site. The appellant considers that this is mainly because residents do not choose to use their garages, but no survey information has been submitted to substantiate that contention. Although on-street parking restrictions could be imposed they would have to be enforced to be effective. 7. The Council’s reasons for refusal do not refer to pedestrian or highway safety problems from the proposed reduction in off-street parking. The Framework advises that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. There is no evidence before me that this would be the case. Although increased on-street parking would generally not be desirable in terms of the free flow of traffic and pedestrian safety. 8. The reasons for refusal refer to the detrimental effect on the appearance of the street scene and the amenities of the area in general that would result from the proposal. The appellant advises that they only have one vehicle and the second garage is superfluous. However, that may not be the case for any future occupants. Moreover, visitor parking demand is also a consideration. Additional on-street parking would add to the clutter in the street scene and would detract from the appearance of this housing estate. In this respect it would conflict with the Framework which advises that developments should be designed to reduce street clutter. The proposal would fail to respect and complement the physical characteristics of its surroundings, contrary to Local Plan policy GP.35 and would not constitute sustainable development. 9. The effect of the proposal would potentially be limited to one additional vehicle parking on-street. Despite this, to allow the appeal could result in a situation whereby the Council could find similar proposals for garage conversions within this modern housing estate difficult to resist, thereby adding to the detrimental visual impact of on-street parking. 10. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the appellant’s submission that the proposal would improve the living space at the dwelling. However, I consider that the adverse effects of the proposal would significantly outweigh the benefits. For the reasons given above, on balance, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR