To install a drop kerb for vehicular access to the rear of the property off the B3047

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L1765/D/18/3200767 Bishops Court Lodge, Bishops Sutton Road, Bishops Sutton, Alresford SO24 0AN • 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 Ray Piper against the decision of Winchester City Council. • The application, Ref. 17/02298/HOU, dated 8 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018. • The development proposed is to install a drop kerb for vehicular access to the rear of the property off the B3047. Application for Costs 1. An application for costs was made by Mr Ray Piper against Winchester City Council. This is the subject of a separate Decision. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to install a drop kerb for vehicular access to the rear of the property off the B3047 at Bishops Court Lodge, Bishops Sutton Road, Bishops Sutton in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 17/02298/HOU, dated 8 September 2017, 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 shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: OS based Location Plan; OS based Block Plan; Amended Drawing of the proposal entitled ’Proposed Drop Kerb & Turntable’; 3) The proposed access and drive, including the footway crossing, shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with specifications to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; 4) Before the development hereby permitted commences, detailed plans shall be submitted showing the method of demolition of the section of the wall and proposed materials and method to be used in the installation of the access through the wall. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed access facilitated by the drop kerb on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to the Appeal Decision APP/L1765/D/18/3200767 2 proposed demolition of a section of wall considered by the Council to be a non- designated heritage asset. Reasons 4. The Council considers the quarter mile length of the traditional brick and flint wall along the B3047, including the section forming the boundary to Bishops Court Lodge, to positively contribute to the character of the area. Despite some breaches and re-builds, the section concerned is part of the original early C20th construction and the flintwork is of good craftsmanship. In the Council’s view the wall merits consideration as a non-designated heritage asset, as mentioned in the main issue above. 5. From my visit to the site I agree with this assessment, whilst I additionally support the Council’s view that the removal of a panel of the wall at the appeal property would be harmful both to the wall’s character and appearance and that of its immediate surroundings. The fact that the section to be removed is so close to the existing gap forming part of the driveway to Bishops Lodge is particularly unfortunate, as this fragmentation would undermine the pleasing continuity of the wall and enclosure of the private areas. 6. On the other hand, the demolition would allow off-road parking for Bishops Court Lodge following the withdrawal of the previous parking arrangement for the appellant nearby. And in addition to the private benefit for the appellant of off road parking, there is invariably also a public benefit in terms of highway safety and visual amenity through the reduction in roadside parking. 7. Nonetheless, I am satisfied in this case that the advantages of the new parking arrangement would be outweighed by the already mentioned harm caused by the demolition of a section of the wall. This would be in conflict with Policies MTRA3, CP13 & CP20 of Part 1 of the Winchester District Local Plan 2013; Policies DM15-DM18 inclusive & Policy DM23 of Local Plan Part 2 2017; paragraph 5.73 of the Council’s High Quality Spaces SPD, and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. 8. However, whilst these factors would normally warrant the dismissal of the appeal the appellant argues that in that event he has a fall-back position, given that the removal of a section of the wall is permitted development. This is not disputed by the Council, but the latter argues that it is very unlikely that this would be carried out as there would still be no permission and therefore no facility for a vehicle to cross the pavement and verge and join the highway. 9. The fall-back position has been the subject of case law and in ‘Gambone v SSCLG 2014’ it was held that in order to be a material consideration there need only be a greater than theoretical possibility that the development might take place. Applying that test, the Council’s assessment of ‘very unlikely’ is greater than a theoretical possibility and furthermore in my view if I dismiss the appeal I consider the appellant would be advised by his agents to pursue the matter. 10. The wall can be demolished without any sanction because it is permitted development and the financial cost of this would be modest. The appellant could then re-apply for permission for the dropped kerb and it is already established that the Highways Department agree that with a proposal to have a turntable installed there would be no highway reason for refusal. Appeal Decision APP/L1765/D/18/3200767 3 11. Nor would the Council have their main reason for refusal, the loss of the heritage asset, albeit not designated, and the adverse effect of its removal on the remaining wall and the surrounding area. From the officer’s report it is clear that the only basis for a second refusal would be (i) views of the ‘unsightly turntable’; (ii) that parked cars would be visible from the road, and (iii) that ‘the associated dropped kerb and tarmac access from the road across the existing grass verge and pavement, is considered to negatively impact the character of the surrounding area’. 12. However, I agree with the grounds of appeal that with the turntable essentially flush with the ground and perhaps even painted an appropriate colour it would be not be unsightly. Parked cars outside dwellings and an access across a footpath are not a realistic objection in a case where there are other examples of both in Bishops Sutton, and the appeal site is not even in a conservation area. Moreover, solid oak gates the full height of the opening are proposed by the appellant and it is likely that for much of the time the turntable and parked cars would not be visible from the public realm. 13. In the light of the above, although these points in conjunction with the demolition of the wall had some relevance as part of painting the overall picture of a negative effect in the refusal of the current proposal, I consider that on their own they would not form a justifiable reason for refusing a new application for a dropped kerb. 14. I must therefore give the fall-back significant weight in this appeal and also note that the advantage of the condition suggested by the Council as regards control over the demolition and materials to be used, for example in ‘making good’ its removal, and the standard condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (insofar as the wall is concerned), would not be available in a permission on a subsequent application. 15. Overall, whilst I agree with the Council that there would be harm caused and a conflict with local and national policy as a result of the demolition, the appellant’s fall-back position is sufficiently material in this case for me to decide on balance that the appeal should be allowed. In addition to the aforementioned conditions I shall impose a condition requiring the access and driveway to be constructed in accordance with approved specifications so as to ensure that that both their adequacy and appearance are satisfactory. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR